The Halftime Spray #10 (2014)

This week the guessing game surrounding James Tedesco's home in 2015 was finally settled, when he agreed to a three year deal at the Canberra Raiders.

The decision though raises a few questions, not about the deal itself, many of which have seen heated debates across the League Unlimited forums:

Players should do their contract negotiations in the off season.Teams signing players mid-season has long caused ire amongst most fans. Watching a player wearing your teams colours, knowing that they won't be doing so the following year. Wondering if said player is focussed on the current season. Questioning if they are putting in enough effort etc.

These are legitimate concerns and fans could not be excused for thinking any of these. If players are allowed to negotiate and make deals about where they are playing the following year, then why not go all the way and just have a mid-season transfer window. If a player agrees to a contract mid-season with another side, he should be allowed to switch to that side straight away. The new club then takes over his remaining salary for the current year.

Should a player who has been signed mid-season be retained in the first grade side?
This is a very tricky question. In the case of Tedesco, he is the Wests Tigers best fullback, but if the club has decided that it won't shop around for a replacement, then they should continue working towards their plan of improvement in 2015. 

Why should the club enhance a departing player's credentials and abilities and suppress that of a retained player? In the Tedesco case, by playing him, his current side would only be helping Canberra at the detriment of the Wests Tigers. In other cases, the side may be a strong premiership chance and will use that player to help reach that greatest of goals.

Should players who leave a club purely for more money be seen in a poor light?
It's understandable for fans to instantly turn on a player after they've announced they are changing clubs and receiving a bigger salary. Loyalty is raised a lot in the modern game, but isn't really shown by any parties (the teams, the players or the governing body) anywhere near as much as it used to, or should do. In short, any player who has the good fortune to be offered a high salary is most likely going to take it. Rugby League players have around a decade to earn essentially the majority of their 40 years of income. If a seemingly injury prone player is in the same situation, then he is even more inclined to take the bigger money offer.

Should the NRL be doing more to reward clubs who produce more local junior talent than others, to help those clubs retain those players when they hit the NRL?Short answer is no. You can't force players to play at particular clubs. Furthermore, some clubs are fortunate to have vastly larger and stronger junior pools to select their future stars from than other clubs. The main priority is ensuring as many of these young players get to play in the NRL.

Some people believe in the romantic concept where loyalty prevails over greed, but in today's world, especially in professional sports, such a concept is becoming more and more rare.

Rugby League is a business. Players are assets. Fans are consumers.

Mad Monday - Mid-season Signings (2012)

This week saw the signing of current Dragons player Beau Scott by Newcastle for 4 years, commencing in 2013.

This absurd signing is made less so by the fact that the Roosters last year signed James Maloney from the Warriors, effective in 2013 as well.

These are a string of mid-season signings that have brought about the ire of many a league fan over many years of late, so much so that it has raised the old issue as to whether there should be a draft.

Talks of a draft in Rugby League have always been quickly stopped by the NRL who simply say "Terry Hill", which has always been met with the same eerie silence as the term "Superleague".

In 1991, Terry Hill was drafted by Easts. He didn't like the decision and contested it in court, and won. The draft in Rugby League died and has never been back.

However the time is now right. The climate for a draft in 1991 was not right. Player wages back then were not that good, unless you were one of the few elite players. Everyone else had to have jobs outside of Rugby League. Just recently I saw an old game on TV between Norths and Wests in 1991.

When they focussed on a player they had the usual player career stats as well as that players occupation.

An argument made today about the draft concept and why it shouldn't be introduced is because it means players won't be allowed to play for the team in the area they played their junior footy, or where they grew up.

At first look, its a fair call. But when you look a little deeper, you soon see that it is absurd.

Only 5 of the 16 teams have at least half of their 25-man NRL squads who played junior footy in the area of the NRL team they currently represent. Approximately 38% of NRL players are juniors of the team they currently represent.

Thus putting an end to that nonsense argument.

The NRL needs a draft. Player contracts were once iron clad, not so much legally, but because players were not interested in changing clubs that often. Now its such a frequent occurrence that it no longer matters to fans where a player comes from. Loyalty is a dying tradition which is why its celebrated so much more passionately now.

Bring in the draft, players are happily changing clubs all the time, even a year before their current contract ends. It will be better for the game and it would also help further even out the competition and make the most of all of the games juniors nurseries.