Hugh McGahan: Some players more equal than others

Salary cap, what salary cap? You know - the rules designed to prevent extra payments to players outside what is deemed legal by the NRL? If there are rules governing the use of the cap, then all parties must abide by them or scrap them altogether.

Well, if Australian TV broadcaster Channel Nine (or others) are going to top up the salary of St George Illawarra's Mark Gasnier to prevent him from switching codes to rugby union, then the whole system is a joke.

Although Channel Nine distanced themselves from a deal yesterday, it doesn't mean another sponsor won't emerge to fund a deal.

How can an independent body be allowed to promise cash or employment to a player for an unlimited value? As it currently stands under NRL rules, a sponsor can supplement a player's income to a specific value; this value is approximately $150,000-$200,000 and does not need to be included in the cap. But it must be declared to the NRL.

However, for some reason, Channel Nine fits outside this criteria, as it did two years ago when Andrew Johns stitched a deal to remain in league.

At the time the NRL stated that this deal was a "one off" case. This is clearly a case of double standards by the NRL after fining and deducting points from the Warriors this year and the Bulldogs in 2002 for constructing similar deals.

What is also astounding is the way the NRL are openly endorsing the process and claiming it is not in breach of the rules. All I can conclude is that there are rules for some and rules for others.

In this case, the rules must be saying that if a player is seriously contemplating a code switch, then the standard rules don't apply.

Why is the player contemplating a move to rugby union more important than the one who is likely to leave for the UK Super League competition? Is it just a case of preventing the other code from snaring a high-profile player? Should the NRL be seeking to retain their stars (including those heading off to Europe) rather than prevent rugby union from snaring them?

It is highly unfair for the NRL to set such a precedent, as it did with Johns, to pay players more to stay in the sport - when clubs struggle to hold on to their players and remain loyal to the game.

And this is all for the sake of saving face against the old foe. Either way, it is enough for fans to feel aggrieved about the way they have seen their players leave the club because that club cannot afford to retain them.

If the NRL want to be serious about retaining high profile or marquee players, then it needs to pay its top 30 players, including Kiwis, to ensure no player will need to move for financial reasons. If they wish to switch codes, then it would be for the challenge, not the money.

These top 30 can be identified easily as most players are rated under the current salary cap system, or it can be those who have represented their state (New South Wales or Queensland) or country (Australia or New Zealand) in the previous season.

Moving forward, if the NRL and Channel Nine or someone else come to an arrangement with Gasnier in the next week or so, it will be so he stays in rugby league and not just with St George.

So, will the NRL allow other clubs to negotiate with Gasnier at the same time as St George seeks to keep him? The NRL surely could not let St George be the only club to talk to him prior to the June 30 tampering deadline. His deal with Channel Nine was to remain in the sport and St George should not be given until the deadline date of June 30 to strike a deal and prevent other clubs from capturing his services.

If this does happen, it will again show where the NRL stands on certain issues.

Again, abide by the salary cap rules or scrap them altogether.