@Cairnstigers said in [JAC](/post/1252240) said:
@Tiger5150 said in [JAC](/post/1252179) said:
@Cairnstigers said in [JAC](/post/1252172) said:
@Everything-WT said in [JAC](/post/1252167) said:
Take this points system dribble elsewhere
It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club
Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.
Can a $9.4 million cap be thought of as a restraint of trade ?
Because the league has set that figure
POssibly, but hasnt been tested, but that is not what you are talking about, you are talking about setting arbitrary values. What if Teddy wanted to come to the Tigers and we had $300K to offer him and he said yes but NRL said no he is worth $700K and cant come?
What is JAC's value
$600,000 as an untried fullback?
A player has the right to earn as much as possible (we all know and understand that) and that is determined by what a club is willing to pay
and that is the current system, not what you are suggesting.
Therefore the larger amount offered to a player should set a players value (not undervalued)
And that is the value that should be used and applied against the cap
Do you realise what the cap is for? It is not to level the talent, it is to stop clubs going broke. What you are suggesting would encourage the Tigers or Bulldogs to offer a Teddy $3M to force Roosters hands,
Or
Think of it as $1 equals 1 point (like flybuys)
Each club has 9,400,000 points to spend
You can only get so much with your points
Make up your mind. Points? Market value? NRL set value?.