This week, rising star Roger Tuivasa-Sheck accepted an offer to join the New Zealand Warriors for the next three seasons on a reported contract value averaging more than $850,000 a year. Now, from personal experience I know media reports of contract values can be somewhat overstated. However, there is no doubt it's a very lucrative deal that's seen this young man leave the Roosters to take up an opportunity with a rival team. Right from the outset, let me state that I am a huge fan of this young man. I have watched his progress through the Roosters development system ever since he was first recruited to the club for season 2012. I firmly believe that over the next four to five seasons he could develop into one of the NRL's real stars. However, while it's a very real possibility the day may come where Tuivasa-Sheck is worth more than 15 per cent of a club's salary cap in a 25-man roster, it is a huge leap of faith, if not a downright gamble, to invest such money in a player before his potential is actually realised. It may prove to be money well spent and a great investment in the club's future, but what effect does such a purchase do to the overall player market? What effect will it have on current Warriors players who read the reports of their new high-priced recruit?

If Tuivasa-Sheck is worth $850,000 a season, what does that make a Johnathan Thurston, Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, Cameron Smith worth? Shaun Johnson (Warriors), Ben Hunt (Broncos), and Adam Reynolds (Rabbitohs), to name a few, are young players starting to prove themselves as footballers who can influence results and consistently win games. If you are going to spend 15 per cent of your fixed wage pool on one player, then it stands to reason that player should be playing in a position of influence, have a proven record in regularly deciding the results of games, making those players around him better players, and adding a commercial value to your organisation through his profile and popularity. The Gold Coast Titans and Parramatta clubs recently decided that Manly playmakers Daly Cherry-Evans and Kieran Foran were each worth more than 20 per cent of their respective salary caps. Having played in, and won, grand finals, and successful State of Origin and Test football teams, it can be argued these two lads have met the criteria and on proven ability can give these organisations a return on their huge investments.

But can the same be said for Tuivasa-Sheck at this stage? He has played a handful of games in the top grade in the fullback position. His Roosters are sitting mid-table with three wins and three losses to start the new season. Is the new deal a reward for proven performance, or a punt on potential? Is that how rosters should be developed? As I said, the day may well come where he is dominating the competition and winning the Warriors their much-desired NRL premierships. But if we start paying 21-year-old footballers, with only a handful of matches in their current playing position on their resume $850,000 a season on potential, based purely on what we think MIGHT happen, where does that leave us with the other 24 players who make up a roster? This signing has the potential to completely throw the player market into meltdown. What do the big blokes up front who command respect for the team, make the hard yards and make space for the playmakers in which to operate now think about their value to the team? What about the players who go out week-in, week-out, making all the tackles and bravely defending the goal line against all-comers, now think about their worth under the salary cap?

Without these players, the playmakers would be flat out getting results on their own. The big challenge for clubs is how do they properly develop a young player for the future, while at the same time keeping their current roster competitive in the NRL competition, yet pay him enough to ward off clubs who swoop in and offer him vast sums based purely on potential? How does a club balance the current playing roster, stay competitive and give fans something to cheer for but at the same time develop young players in the appropriate manner? It's a delicate juggling act. If the Roosters had sacked long-serving champion Anthony Minichiello a year earlier to clear the pathway for Tuivasa-Sheck in 2014, they may have been able to contract the youngster long-term and avoid the Warriors' approach.

However, that certainly would have been seen as disloyalty to Minichiello, extremely unpopular with fans, and probably detrimental to the mentoring of Tuivasa-Sheck, who got to play a season with Minichiello unselfishly guiding his on-field education. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not crying for the Roosters because they lost a player to a higher bid from a rival club. They have done the same themselves many times over the years. They are big boys and they will survive. But it doesn't make it right that a club can develop a young talent for several seasons, only to see him lured away by a huge offer from a rival club, without any compensation or reward whatsoever to the club who has invested time, money and emotion in his development. There are any number of examples of this occurring in our game. If, as people always say, this game is now a "BUSINESS", and it's OK for players to sell themselves to the highest bidder because that's "BUSINESS", then where in all this is the "BUSINESS" return for the club that originally recruited, developed and produced the player?

It goes deeper than this. The competition for talented young players is fierce. Player managers and club talent scouts are out watching 14-year-old junior competitions and jumping the fence at full-time to race to the kid who scored a couple of tries in the hope of signing him. Clubs are competing with each other daily, spending a fortune on teenagers, based purely on potential, in the hope they may discover the "next big thing". Millions of dollars are being spent on kids that will never play NRL football. And even if a player graduates through the system and one day makes his debut in first-grade football, there are no guarantees whatsoever that this player will play enough NRL games to start to repay the time and money the club has invested in his development. I maintain that a player has to play somewhere between 30 and 50 first grade games, and show he can be part of a consistently winning team before he proves he has been a successful development for the club.

In 2012 we did an exercise that looked at the history of the game and the number of matches players actually play. At that point in time, there had been something like 9100 first grade players since 1908. Of these, a whopping 1166, had played only one first grade game. Something like 6600 had played less than 50 first grade games. And these are just the players who actually make the top grade. Of all the young hopefuls who first walk through the front gates as teenagers with dreams of playing NRL football, I would say it's a very, very small percentage that ever get to realise that dream — even if it's for only one game.

As time goes on and 17-man interchange football starts to take effect on these statistics, the figures will change. However, it just goes to show how much time and money is spent on players who will never come close to giving the club a return on investment. In professional football codes overseas, most of the expense and gamble in this development process is removed because much of the recruitment and development is done in collegiate systems or in a proven structure of lower-tier competitions. The franchises or clubs in the major competition are recruiting players who are closer to being qualified talent. Under the current model of rugby league in this country, though, all development is funded through the NRL clubs and some spend a lot more on their junior systems than others. Prices for players with potential, often greatly exceed the wages of players with proven records.

And there is no protection, reward or return for a club who develops a talented player through to NRL level or higher, who later leaves to join a club who enters the player market with desperate intentions. The current system is costing the game a fortune. Tradesmen players and journeymen are being left behind earnings-wise in the wake of exorbitant contracts for potential stars. There is also little incentive for clubs to develop talent. Over and above all this, though, is that the importance of success, emotion and desperation are the overriding factors in a lot of the recruitment decisions being made today. The balance of power is with players and player managers who play on all of this to extract huge deals for their clients. OK, that's their good luck. But the game foolishly hands his power to these people.

The system is wrong. It has resulted in a game that lives well beyond its means. That's why we have have clubs in financial stress. Someone needs to have the courage to rein all this in before we send each other broke. These are the real issues that need to be discussed for the betterment of our game.