The Cronulla salary cap scandal won’t be the last the game endures because the harsh punishments required to deter the clubs from cheating would ultimately kill them off.
NRL boss Todd Greenberg, at the request of the Australian Rugby League Commission, has been tasked with ramping up the financial penalties for cap rorting to send a strong message to the cheats. However, the majority of clubs – despite being funded better than at any other time in history – are already struggling to make ends meet.
NRL CEO Todd Greenberg is on a hiding to nothing when it comes to punishing cap cheats.
Take poor old Manly, for instance. They are Silvertails in name only, their coach forced to furnish the premises with chairs and tables from his own backyard.
Wests Tigers' facilities at Concord were below standard when they won the competition in 2005 and are no better today.
And despite the talk about the Sharks becoming a financial powerhouse off the back of the development of their Woolooware precinct, they are facing the prospect of a $4 million loss this year alone. As it stands, they have spent only the requisite 95 per cent of their salary cap, perhaps a pointer to the financial strain they are under.
If we are to believe that all clubs are created equal, then the NRL should punish each of them consistently should they incur a cap breach. However, each of them have a different ability to absorb – or even survive – a harsh financial or points breach.
The Sharks have made the NRL aware of potential “discrepancies” relating to historical third-party player payments.
For instance, the Brisbane Broncos – one of the only clubs that consistently turns a profit – could cop a seven-figure fine or even the loss of competition points due to the resilience of the franchise. Ditto the Eels or the Bulldogs, whose leagues clubs wrote cheques when they were pinged for dodgy deals. However, the same sanction could spell the end for the Sharks or Sea Eagles. Which will no doubt be taken into account if there was need to punish them.
When the NRL agreed to the new funding agreement – which provides the clubs funding to the tune of 130 per cent of the salary cap – all 16 franchises were told the days of head office bailing them out of financial trouble were over. However, many remain on the breadline, meaning Rugby League Central can’t whack them as hard as they deserve if they get caught doing dodgy deals.
In a bid to save them from themselves, the NRL has brought in a cap on football department spending. Regardless, most clubs continue to punish themselves through poor management. Penrith, for instance, sacked Anthony Griffin just after they extended his contract, but at least the club can afford to pay for both insane decisions. Manly’s decision to allow Barrett to give 12 months notice, thus making his position untenable, will prove even more costly to a club struggling to make ends meet.
This is what makes the Cronulla situation so intriguing. To date, it appears their breach is only a minor one. The club self-reported a $50,000 promise to former forward Chris Heighington that may not have been fully disclosed. Compared to the rorting that has gone on elsewhere – the Eels illegally overspent by an estimated $3 million during their cap saga – it is chicken feed.
But what if the NRL – in sifting through tens of thousands of emails, texts and documents – finds the Heighington issue is just the tip of the iceberg? How can the NRL smash the Sharks with fines the club can’t afford to pay?
And if they took Cronulla’s parlous financial state into consideration and went relatively easy on them, what message would that send to other clubs thinking about running the gauntlet?
The NRL is on a hiding to nothing when it comes to such matters. In Parramatta’s case, they came up with a sanction that ultimately led to the removal of the cancer within the club – a toxic board – but also had critics questioning how they could still play for points during a season in which they were over the limit.
In regards to Manly, it could be argued chairman Scott Penn is actually $160,000 better off because the fine ($500,000 after $250,000 is suspended) amounts to less than a punishment that prevents him from spending $660,000 in the salary cap over this season and next.
For clubs considering pushing the boundaries, it comes down to risk versus reward.
While some believe they can’t afford to cheat, others believe they can’t afford not to.
Source: Read Full Article