NPC 2023
-
-
-
-
@ploughboy said in NPC 2023:
funny thing i know club teams whos budget is $500000 and most at least $180000
WTF really? in melbourne we get about 30-35k in subs, main sponsor is 10k, shoulder is 5k and then training tops are a couple each, so say another 25k in sponsors, so a generous 60k a year...thats why we cant afford to build clubrooms
can you say which club?
The NZ Herald posted a report from the Auckland/Harbour game. They pointed out that they don't post about the NPC, because no one reads it.
So, that's another data point to ignore while the NPC closes in upon extinction.
its a chicken and egg deal at the moment, we can just as easily say people arent interested because no one (NZR, PU, Media) are doing a good job hyping it....we might have to use some of the silverlake money to get people interested in it again...have to spend money to make money etc
interesting, they talk of a 1.1m cap, i say a thing in the net yesterday with a news report from 2006 about the NPC...im sure it said they wanted a cap of 2M then...suggesting teams were paying more than that back then, a huge drop
-
-
They'll be comparing clicks relative other articles on the site.
Anyway here's the line mentioning why the paper doesn't cover NPC scores anymore (this story wasn't really discussing the match, it was more about the decline of the comp)
The score — in case anyone is wondering, since an absence of reader interest means they’re no longer reported on this site — was 43-21
-
Based on what I was told some club players get paid a sum comparable to NPC contracts. It might be the same club @ploughboy is talking about.
Like the SR salary cap, the NPC salary cap is largely meaningless if you are just topping up player's SR contracts. That becomes more of an issue with the "haves" and "have nots" where the quality of the players you have in your squad is even wider between say, an Auckland and a Southland.
-
Like the SR salary cap, the NPC salary cap is largely meaningless if you are just topping up player's SR contracts. That becomes more of an issue with the "haves" and "have nots" where the quality of the players you have in your squad is even wider between say, an Auckland and a Southland.
Which creates other problems too. Auckland had ~27 SR players, plus a couple of NZ u20's they wanted in the squad.. leaving almost no room for selections from club form
I think the Cantabs might be even worse ~30 SR players?
-
i know i said budget but this is what i was told clubs are spending on there top team and does not include any other teams they have. . i know of at least two clubs where every player gets paid for each appearance. the person who told me lead me to believe that all clubs in this comp are paying players and this was the amounts they were spending.
@Bovidae im sure we will be talking about the same club and im sure you can guess the other. -
i love this stuff and remember saying last year they should do more of this kind of thing
-
@Stargazer thats a handy pickup
-
-
@Duluth If provinces could only field local players, the competition would always favour the big provinces, who have a much larger player pool. Auckland would have too many players and talented, deserving players would miss out, while a small province wouldn't have sufficient players of an adequate level to field a competitive team.
The competition wouldn't be fair.
Fielding local players should be the starting point, but it isn't always realistic.
