A theory : Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:30 am  

This one is a double-edge sword and I really don't know the answer, but it is worth asking the question anyway.

Do players having longer contracts than a couple of years draw them into the comfort zone, or does it give peace of mind that they can get on with the job in hand?

I'm pretty sure people will come on and cite the examples of Monaghan and King, but to get a player to uproot from the other side of the world for a couple of years, especially established NRL players isn't going to happen.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:41 am  

Depends on the players character rather than the duration of the contract. A good professional is going to be a good professional whether he's on a 1 year or 5 year deal.

Lots of overseas players come over on 1 or 2 year deals, I would say 2 years is the most common contract.

I would be wary of signing up a player on a long term deal who we have signed from a club which is bigger/more successful than ourselves. That type of player might be looking for comfort and security rather than climbing the career ladder.

Agents know when a player has to 'cash in' on his reputation being at its peak. When a player has had some success with a big club, and is told they won't get a new deal, their reputation is at the highest point it will ever be so they can ask for good wages - this is the time to get a long term deal because it will be the most important contract they ever sign in their careers in terms of financial security. We have a lot of these players.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:03 pm  

I think as Sally says, if a player is professional and committed enough, then the length of the contract should be pretty irrelevent.

My main gripe with the Salary cap system is that it seems to have eliminated the 'bonus' system in a player's contract....I firmly believe that there are a few players who would certainly buck their ideas up if their lucrative salaries weren't already guaranteed.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:30 pm  

i wonder how many overseas players would come for the old system of win/ loss wages,


1000 for a win 50 for a loss!

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:58 pm  

The Angry Pirate wrote:

I think as Sally says, if a player is professional and committed enough, then the length of the contract should be pretty irrelevent.

My main gripe with the Salary cap system is that it seems to have eliminated the 'bonus' system in a player's contract....I firmly believe that there are a few players who would certainly buck their ideas up if their lucrative salaries weren't already guaranteed.

Two points, one, players would go for salaries that are more guaranteed than those with bonuses. That is common in football (was mentioned in an interview with david james i believe when asked about bonuses).

And secondly, i didn't think we liked mercenaries playing for the club?

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:46 pm  

Prior to the start of the season I thought the situation of having a lot of players playing for contracts this season would have helped improve player performance. Clearly not.
Having thought about it a fair bit over the last 4 weeks I have come to the conclusion that players are playing for themselves. If you are playing for your future income you might be more inclined to go for the glory play, (See the Lee Penny school of 2 on one attack).
I know that in theory they shouldnt but is it in the back of a players mind that they need to shine sometimes at the detriment of the team?

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:02 pm  

Wire On The Telly wrote:

Two points, one, players would go for salaries that are more guaranteed than those with bonuses. That is common in football (was mentioned in an interview with david james i believe when asked about bonuses).

And secondly, i didn't think we liked mercenaries playing for the club?

I don't quite see what is mercenary about it??...

The way I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios...

1. For example, Matt King gets paid £100k a year guaranteed, whether the club finishes 1st, 7th or 14th.

Or,

2. Matt King gets £50k a year guaranteed, and a further £50k in bonuses depending on the team's performances on he pitch...(Make up your own qualifying scheme)

I think example 1 makes him a mercenary, you seem to think number 2 does??

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:14 pm  

The Angry Pirate wrote:

I don't quite see what is mercenary about it??...

The way I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios...

1. For example, Matt King gets paid £100k a year guaranteed, whether the club finishes 1st, 7th or 14th.

Or,

2. Matt King gets £50k a year guaranteed, and a further £50k in bonuses depending on the team's performances on he pitch...(Make up your own qualifying scheme)

I think example 1 makes him a mercenary, you seem to think number 2 does??

No my point is, there is no chance a player would choose the second option as the first is guaranteed where as the second one, they could end up with o nly half. Surely that makes sense?

My second point was entirely separate point that refers to the fact surely we do not want people coming to the club to top up their pension and not care about the club.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:42 pm  

The Angry Pirate wrote:

I think example 1 makes him a mercenary, you seem to think number 2 does??

So that just about takes into account the majoirty of the population, or should professional sportsmen only play for the teams they love and for the game, in the same way that we all go to work beacuase we love our companies and the business we are in?

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:48 pm  

behind the stick wrote:

So that just about takes into account the majoirty of the population, or should professional sportsmen only play for the teams they love and for the game, in the same way that we all go to work beacuase we love our companies and the business we are in?

I don't think being a professional sportsman with the potential adulation of the paying public, the hero-worship of the local youngsters and the possibility of glory when winning trophies is the same as working on the till in Asda.