Salary Cap

[Champ1]

Just some thoughts on your system @Champ1.

1. How do you determine the worth of players that don't go to market?
2. What would prevent teams from signing up young players on high $ long term contracts when their points value is lower?
3. There are players that are 0% chance of leaving their club or the city they live in, I can see opposition clubs loading up on those players.
4. I also think it is a little messy, as the club would be trying to sign a player based on what they want to pay him, say $2m for MM, but would also be putting in bids for how many points he is signed for. Just a little bit complicated.

1- Players points who dont go to market are determined by their last contract. If a player wants to stay & club wants to keep them they can renew on that basis. It would reward clubs for "taking a chance" on a player or making them a better player. If the club believes the player is worth less points or the player believes he can get better money elsewhere , either party is released at the end of the contract & he goes to market .
2- Clearly, there would need to be a safeguard for this. No answers for this one yet.
3-If a player doesnt want to leave his club, then him & the club do the deal before his current contract ends so other clubs dont get the oppurtunity to do this. If the player & club dont come to terms, then the player would have to leave where ever they are anyway if he wanted to continue his NRL career. Also clubs "loading up" are in danger of ending up with that player, whether they want him or not , because once they put the offer in it is binding the moment the player accepts it.
4- Have to disagree with this one.

Cochise , a smart man like yourself can come up with an answer for no 2! This is a joint effort by all the forum. 🙂

 

[Champ1]

In your example, you say the Roosters can pay every player $2 million and set the points value….what if they set the value to 1. Other clubs still need to stump up more than $2 million to get the player.

What benefit does the player get if they are valued at the highest points? They still need to be paid a salary.

Unless you link points to dollars, then I can’t see how that system works.

Hi Wests, please see post above at 10:57 today. It is just an interpretation of all the goods ideas that posters have had & trying to put it into a system.

 

[weststigers]

Hi Wests, please see post above at 10:57 today. It is just an interpretation of all the goods ideas that posters have had & trying to put it into a system.

Sorry mate. I did read that after and you addressed each point is worth $100k.

The trouble with it is it essentially removes the cap altogether, because if the tigers come in with a bid for Moses of 12 points ($1.2 million), then Parra signs him for 12 points @ $3 million, then they are getting 30 points worth of player for only 12 points.

The richest clubs would still get all the talent.

If people are ok with this, then the NRL should just sell all licenses to the highest bidder and make it a pissing contest amongst rich owners.

 

[Champ1]

Sorry mate. I did read that after and you addressed each point is worth $100k.

The trouble with it is it essentially removes the cap altogether, because if the tigers come in with a bid for Moses of 12 points ($1.2 million), then Parra signs him for 12 points @ $3 million, then they are getting 30 points worth of player for only 12 points.

The richest clubs would still get all the talent.

If people are ok with this, then the NRL should just sell all licenses to the highest bidder and make it a pissing contest amongst rich owners.

But all clubs still can only buy 100 points worth of talent. This is where "the salary cap" is. .Regardless of what they pay them , they can only have 100 points worth of talent. It stops what the the Rorters do now under the salary cap...... contract them for 800k & pay the rest under the table.

 

[supercoach]

No goalposts moved. Original idea exactly the same whether it is points or dollars, doesnt matter the method of determining an equal salary cap value for all clubs . I went to points to try to add some clarity . But Ive just exposed the error in your logic. To say the cap we have now is ok (as a restraint of trade in your words not mine) but the the new system that works on exactly the same principles is not. You cant have it both ways.

Under the new system , a club would have a certain amount of points to "spend". The highest bidder sets the point value for that player ( true market value) . A player can sign with any club but it will cost that club the true market value in points ,not one made up by the club & player to rort the system. Now what the club pays the player doesnt need to be regulated because as far as the salary cap points go, they can only sign players up to their cap points. So , if the rorters want to pay 2m for every player on their books they can , but it stops them stacking their side with all the premium players because they only have the same amount of points as everyone else.

The only valid concern you raise is protecting club from overspending . The club financial health could be audited every year just like they do now to make sure they are viable.

Also , once again , no restrictions on either the earnings or club choice of players . Exactly as now, a club would not offer a player a contract if it did not have the points available, exactly as the salary cap works now(except in dollars). Is it a restriction that we cant fit 12 test players under or salarycap? No , it is because that the rules of the game.

It seriously is not that complicated & is based on the same principles of the system we have now with a dollar value salary cap, except this way it stops the rorting.

I first floated this model about 8 years ago and faced an instant backlash on the forum. Personally I think it’s the only way you’re going to get a level playing field. Although coming up with a system to grade players and allocate a point value could open a massive can of worms.

my gripe with the current system is, it is impossible to stop players getting indirect rewards to entice them to join a club. A family member gets a contract or a job with someone with connections to the club, an opportunity x football. There are a million ways to beat the system and the Chooks along with 16 other clubs are all doing it….some do it better than others

 

[cochise]

I first floated this model about 8 years ago and faced an instant backlash on the forum. Personally I think it’s the only way you’re going to get a level playing field. Although coming up with a system to grade players and allocate a point value could open a massive can of worms.

my gripe with the current system is, it is impossible to stop players getting indirect rewards to entice them to join a club. A family member gets a contract or a job with someone with connections to the club, an opportunity x football. There are a million ways to beat the system and the Chooks along with 16 other clubs are all doing it….some do it better than others

I was one of the people who spoke against the system, I haven't seen a points system where I am happy with how the points are being allocated.

 

[Champ1]

Just some thoughts on your system @Champ1.

1. How do you determine the worth of players that don't go to market?
2. What would prevent teams from signing up young players on high $ long term contracts when their points value is lower?
3. There are players that are 0% chance of leaving their club or the city they live in, I can see opposition clubs loading up on those players.
4. I also think it is a little messy, as the club would be trying to sign a player based on what they want to pay him, say $2m for MM, but would also be putting in bids for how many points he is signed for. Just a little bit complicated.

Hey Cochise, ive been thinking about no 2 . If a a club does this, they are taking a risk that the junior is going to actually be very good . If they take the risk ,I reckon they deserve the reward if it pans out. But i think there would have to be max contract time set for juniors.....thinking 4 years?
At the end of that contract he has to go to market to get his points value , however the club would get the develpoment ( Junior ) discount.

 

[Garrry]

Trouble is smart opperators like uncle nick have it so the players receive the benefits after they finish playing for the club. As they no longer play for the club, cant be traced bcak to Uncle nick

Exactly, it's happening now with retired rorters players, and it's all exciting for new signings (Smith) and current players at the rorters, uncle nick is too smart and good on him for getting away with it, more stupid from pvl and abdo but then again they may know but don't do anything about it or can't???

 

[weststigers]

But all clubs still can only buy 100 points worth of talent. This is where "the salary cap" is. .Regardless of what they pay them , they can only have 100 points worth of talent. It stops what the the Rorters do now under the salary cap...... contract them for 800k & pay the rest under the table.

Yes but it’s a cap not limited by dollars. The value of a dollar is a dollar and all teams get the same. The value of a point under your system is worth 100k to the bidding team, but worth whatever a club wants if they are retaining the player. The value of a point is different from player to player and contract to contract depending on circumstances. It’s not at all equal.

Clubs with more money can hold onto players by paying them substantially more than another club.

Again, the example of Moses. Under a $ value salary cap, the Eels would be limited in how much they could pay to retain Moses. Under the points system, they could benefit from paying him substantially more, yet having a comparatively lower amount of points off their cap.

Quick example comparing an unlimited salary, 100 point cap system vs a $10 million salary cap.

Under the points system; If the Tigers offered $1 million dollars a season as the highest bidder. That would set Moses’ point value at 10 which is 10% of the points cap.

Under your system, the Eels could outbid the Tigers if they were the richer club and pay Moses $3 million and still only use 10% of the points for their team.

He is not taking less to stay like the current system. He is taking more to stay, yet only affecting their cap by 10% points.

Under the current system, if Parra wanted to keep him, they would need to up their bid to over $1 million meaning they would be spending more than 10% of the cap to keep him.

You could have teams worth $20-$30 million against teams worth $10 million all falling within the 100 point cap.

It doesn’t work.

The point of any salary cap, points or otherwise is to spread the talent to make a fairer competition. This system would only benefit rich clubs.

If you are going to do this, you would scrap the cap altogether.

 

[supercoach]

I was one of the people who spoke against the system, I haven't seen a points system where I am happy with how the points are being allocated.

Always going to be an issue, but has to be better than the system we have in place now. As I said, it’s not TPA’s that makes the system broken, it’s the “ disguised rorts” that can’t be legally challenged. Some of these rorts might not appear till ten years post football.

Anyway highly unlikely anything will be done in my life time. One thing what makes me laugh is Peter V last year was talking about rewarding teams that develope talent and uncle Nick thinks that would be good for the Chooks because they develop so many kids.

 

[Champ1]

Yes but it’s a cap not limited by dollars. The value of a dollar is a dollar and all teams get the same. The value of a point under your system is worth 100k to the bidding team, but worth whatever a club wants if they are retaining the player. The value of a point is different from player to player and contract to contract depending on circumstances. It’s not at all equal.

Clubs with more money can hold onto players by paying them substantially more than another club.

Again, the example of Moses. Under a $ value salary cap, the Eels would be limited in how much they could pay to retain Moses. Under the points system, they could benefit from paying him substantially more, yet having a comparatively lower amount of points off their cap.

Quick example comparing an unlimited salary, 100 point cap system vs a $10 million salary cap.

Under the points system; If the Tigers offered $1 million dollars a season as the highest bidder. That would set Moses’ point value at 10 which is 10% of the points cap.

Under your system, the Eels could outbid the Tigers if they were the richer club and pay Moses $3 million and still only use 10% of the points for their team.

He is not taking less to stay like the current system. He is taking more to stay, yet only affecting their cap by 10% points.

Under the current system, if Parra wanted to keep him, they would need to up their bid to over $1 million meaning they would be spending more than 10% of the cap to keep him.

You could have teams worth $20-$30 million against teams worth $10 million all falling within the 100 point cap.

It doesn’t work.

The point of any salary cap, points or otherwise is to spread the talent to make a fairer competition. This system would only benefit rich clubs.

If you are going to do this, you would scrap the cap altogether.

I hear you & sorry mate i probs havent explained it very clearly. Forget how much they are being paid. it is irrelevant, because they can only spend 100 points in total. Thats where it evens up the playing field. All clubs have the ability to up their player point bid if they reckon that player is worth it. Also please remember theses dispensations ie 5% per year for long serving players etc are just figures ATM & like you have highlighted may allow Parra too much dispensation. All this is a bunch of what i consider good ideas that I think could work. Getting that balance right is the tricky thing however ideas like yours as expressed here & Cochise & all the other posters who have offered their excellent veiwpoints all add to getting a system that could work.

 

[supercoach]

I hear you & sorry mate i probs havent explained it very clearly. Forget how much they are being paid. it is irrelevant, because they can only spend 100 points in total. Thats where it evens up the playing field. All clubs have the ability to up their player point bid if they reckon that player is worth it. Also please remember theses dispensations ie 5% per year for long serving players etc are just figures ATM & like you have highlighted may allow Parra too much dispensation. All this is a bunch of what i consider good ideas that I think could work. Getting that balance right is the tricky thing however ideas like yours as expressed here & Cochise & all the other posters who have offered their excellent veiwpoints all add to getting a system that could work.

Don’t pretend to have the answers, but you either have system that works or gets very close to working or you throw it all out the window and have open slather like the old days where Manly had two international no7 s in the lower grades..so other teams could not get them.

The current system would work if the 17 clubs all came to a agreement to play by the rules, and the crazy thing they would than regain control of the player wages and movements, that are now controlled by the commission men like Isaac Moses.

 

[CornerPost]

Have all contract offers to players published and show it can actually fit in their salary cap.. then publish all registered contracts.. the transparency alone will put alot of pressure on clubs consistently signing players on "Unders".. mighten stop it..but it would put a big bloody spotlight on it..

 

[gregjm87]

It'd be great. Is it that our salaries aren't high enough ? When players go into the NBA it's life changing money. You just accept you have to move.

Salaries aren't high enough for most players. But the biggest issue is that currently clubs are responsible for junior development. If the club's arent rewarded for development by having first chance at retaining those players then they will stop putting money into development.
Would need an entire new junior system before a draft could be considered. But even then some fringe players may feel a different career is preferred to changing cities.

 

[earl]

Salaries aren't high enough for most players. But the biggest issue is that currently clubs are responsible for junior development. If the club's arent rewarded for development by having first chance at retaining those players then they will stop putting money into development.
Would need an entire new junior system before a draft could be considered. But even then some fringe players may feel a different career is preferred to changing cities.

It's tough right. Rugby League has always been my favourite sport to watch. It's the main sport I support and it's not close. It's also a relatively small sport.

I think the size of the sport and then the support that some clubs get from wealthy benefactors who know how to play the game and are willing to play the game makes the playing field a little uneven.

 

[twentyforty]

The thought of adding another layer of complexity to player contract negotiations is giving me a nervous twitch lol
I think the current mix of player remuneration, while not perfect, is pretty much as good as it can get.
A player has 3 main income sources.
1. Cap share.
2. 2nd party deals, which are registered and capped.
3. 3rd party deals which are basically fan based and estimated to be approximately the equivalent of 5% of cap.
There is room to modify the behaviour of clubs by financial incentives/ disincentives, such as they’re doing with veterans and vehicle allowances, but other than that I see a level playing field as something only the losers want.
If we compare our situation with Roosters, we are comparing apples with oranges.
There are more millionaires per capita in East Sydney than there are in the Campbeltown area.
Can we compete, you betcha!
Because players who find a sense of belonging at a club I believe have more to play for.

 

[Odessa]

Salaries aren't high enough for most players. But the biggest issue is that currently clubs are responsible for junior development. If the club's arent rewarded for development by having first chance at retaining those players then they will stop putting money into development.
Would need an entire new junior system before a draft could be considered. But even then some fringe players may feel a different career is preferred to changing cities.

That's why I was happy when they put the minimum wage of the top 30 to 120K I also would like reserve grade to have a minimum wage of 90K it will help improve first grade it will also bring over the best union players as well without a strong foundation there is no First grade and if will have a good reserve grade maybe the league could do more to promote it maybe have 1 or 2 matchs of the round

But my crazy idea is which would be great for the reserve grade player's and I personally would love is on the bye weekends when there is no rugby league or less games I would the free spots to be fill by reserve grade games fans can see some old boys plus the next generation of talent it would be a ratings success

 

[twentyforty]

Are some TPAs stopping the pilliging of our talent to RA?

Article courtesy of Fox.
"According to The Daily Telegraph, some high-profile rugby league stars who are all off contract this year are on RA’s list of interest, with Sydney Roosters gun Joseph Suaalii the No. 1 target.

The 19-year-old, who starred for Samoa during last year’s Rugby League World Cup in England, represented the Australian Schoolboys in 2019 before making his NRL debut for the Roosters in 2021.

Parramatta Eels centre Will Penisini, Manly flyer Tolu Koula and Melbourne Storm enforcer Nelson Asofa-Solomona are also wanted by RA, News Corp reports.

“We always want to develop players in rugby first. That’s the No. 1 priority,” Jones told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“No. 2 is to get back players who were lost initially from rugby to rugby league due to the financial inducements that league are able to give the players. We want to get players back who are lost.

“Thirdly, at the right time, is there an opportunity to secure some talent we don’t have in rugby from league? I think there is a strategic plan that needs to be put in place but the first thing is to retain the talent we do have."

 

[Cobarcats]

Are some TPAs stopping the pilliging of our talent to RA?

Article courtesy of Fox.
"According to The Daily Telegraph, some high-profile rugby league stars who are all off contract this year are on RA’s list of interest, with Sydney Roosters gun Joseph Suaalii the No. 1 target.

The 19-year-old, who starred for Samoa during last year’s Rugby League World Cup in England, represented the Australian Schoolboys in 2019 before making his NRL debut for the Roosters in 2021.

Parramatta Eels centre Will Penisini, Manly flyer Tolu Koula and Melbourne Storm enforcer Nelson Asofa-Solomona are also wanted by RA, News Corp reports.

“We always want to develop players in rugby first. That’s the No. 1 priority,” Jones told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“No. 2 is to get back players who were lost initially from rugby to rugby league due to the financial inducements that league are able to give the players. We want to get players back who are lost.

“Thirdly, at the right time, is there an opportunity to secure some talent we don’t have in rugby from league? I think there is a strategic plan that needs to be put in place but the first thing is to retain the talent we do have."

Good read me ol mate.
The way I see it RA is really just one team, they could pick the eyes out of our best talent but it wouldn't be a massive raid. Some would go, pick up big dollars and come back after they fail....like our Benji' did.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I was one of the people who spoke against the system, I haven't seen a points system where I am happy with how the points are being allocated.

Agree. The point system is rubbish.

If anyone thinks that will make things even it won’t.