NRL agrees to review third-party agreements in a bid to end salary cap rorting

[sunshine_coast_tiger]

I have mentioned many times that TPA's are a Salary Cap rort and all should go except for the absolute genuine ones around that you can see (eg Billy Slater and Powerade TV ads) which would be decided purely as legitimate or not by the NRL. Most TPA's in reality have been worked out by the club and their is little if any work done by the player to receive them.

Anyone that thinks the Salary Cap is working currently is living in fantasy land. The Roosters have signed Cronk and Tedesco for this year, upgraded a lot of their current players contacts and are reported to have another $1 million to spend. My mail is that they will also sign Angus Crichton for 2019.

I think the NRL should tell the Players Association we are now the sole judge on TPA's and only ones that meet stringent vetting will be accepted.

 

[cochise]

I think a fair few of us are forgetting one major thing .
Any attempts to change TPAs will result in legal action by players .
As far as I know they can’t be banned in any way, as it would be a restraint of trade .
If things got really hairy , the players could torpedo the Salarycap as well, as that’s also illegal.
It only works now because the players accept it. Same as the AFL.

It can easily be argued that the salary cap is not an illegal restraint of trade

 

[cochise]

I think a fair few of us are forgetting one major thing .
Any attempts to change TPAs will result in legal action by players .
As far as I know they can’t be banned in any way, as it would be a restraint of trade .
If things got really hairy , the players could torpedo the Salarycap as well, as that’s also illegal.
It only works now because the players accept it. Same as the AFL.

It can easily be argued that the salary cap is not an illegal restraint of trade

 

[barra]

The other option is player ratings/values.

Transparent, based on facts and no restraint of trade etc.

Absolutely barra. Ive said it before a few times on this forum. Point value per player. Clubs have a quota they can fill up too. No restriction on what players can earn and it spreads the talent.

Problem is player ratings are subjective and would be constantly debated. Who sets them, the NRL? Based on what algorith? And what if you don't agree with or support a given rating? Can a player's rating change over the course of a season? Do you get ratings discounts for club juniors?

Or what happens if you bring on a kid in year 1 as a junior and he tears it up, and in year 2 the NRL tells you he's suddenly gone from 4 points to 9 points based on the previous season, and you have to shed the player because you don't have cap space for a 9?

Are there any sports codes in the world that enforce a player rating cap on teams like this?

And you do end up with a restraint of trade regardless, because players would not be allowed to take pay cuts to play where they wish. If NRL said Thurston was worth 10 in his last contract year, if no club had space for a 10, he'd be out of a job, he couldn't play as a 7 for a salary that suited him.

Players would end up being offered salaries roughly based on their NRL grading, which could then be subject to legal proceedings - that the NRL is stopping Player X from earning money because they won't change their grading.

I'd argue loyalty between players and clubs would decrease even further, because players and clubs could not come to an internal arrangement on reimbursement, they'd be subject to NRL intervention. So if Moses Suli ends up becoming a star, he might want to stay with his mates and junior club at Tigers for a lower salary, but NRL would only permit that if Tigers had sufficient grading cap space, i.e. the deal isn't up to the players, it becomes up to the NRL and how lucky clubs are with their predictions of grading.

For example right now you have salary cap confidence when you sign X players for Y seasons for Z dollar - you know the bulk of the payments you are going to make under the cap in the short-term. But with player gradings, these could change unpredictably year on year, or even within a given year - it all gets taken out of the club's hands.

And you'll still end up with the Broncos and Roosters signing up the best of the 10s, best of the 9s, best of the 8s, best of the 7s etc.

All valid points mate. But they can all be overcome.

The player values would need to be set by the NRL via/or an independent programme writer. There would of course need to be seriously deep consideration given to how the values are scored and it would ultimately be ground-breaking.

But everything can be quantified very accurately, even the 'value' of a league player and importantly, it will be based on FACT. We already know everything we need to know about every player running around in the NRL. It's just a matter of sorting and scoring the multitude of aspects that are relevant. In that regard it will be consistent and fair. And above all, transparent.

Once the programme is in place it's a relatively simple matter of calculating the player value and spitting it out. Any player. There would be no course for legal action from a player because the player themselves have determined their own scores through their own actions.

I would think the player value remains for the duration of the contract (although values would effectively be updated daily). Thus the club commits to the player in much the same way that they already do via a monetary value for a certain period. In this way the future of the player remains in the hands of the player and the club.

Maybe player/club loyalty could be further eroded, maybe not. It's already gone as we knew it, as far as I'm concerned.

I just think it's time to stop focusing on why things might be difficult to do and work toward how we can make good things happen.

 

[jirskyr]

I just think it's time to stop focusing on why things might be difficult to do and work toward how we can make good things happen.

You could say exactly the same thing about the current salary cap and TPAs.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I just think the points system is fraught with danger and is difficult to manage. It takes us to Fantasy Football arrangements where second rowers are rated the game's strongest footballers because they make a million tackles.

And then two seasons later they change the scoring to emphasise the work of halves, then change it again to increase the pull of try scoring. So clubs are continually chasing the scoring system and trying to plan years in advance.

And what do you do if a player intentionally plays poorly for one season for his current club, trying to get his rating down, then signs on with a new club at top dollar and low grading?

Or what do you do if a player is likely very good but is out injured all season?

Or what about a player under disciplinary action who actually is a very good footballer but has a long ban?

It starts to get bananas when you try and quantify everything, measure everything. You can't call it fair, what is fair will be subjective, because the NRL or "stats man" will set the figures. You might say "everyone was graded with the same algorithm", but then they'll say the algorithm is wrong, because it was still set by a person.

And you are no longer allowing people to earn whatever they can based on ability and performance, you are pigeonholing them to an integer based on some formula, and certainly NRL clubs will start paying for the integer value rather than specific value to the club.

 

[barra]

I just think it's time to stop focusing on why things might be difficult to do and work toward how we can make good things happen.

You could say exactly the same thing about the current salary cap and TPAs.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I just think the points system is fraught with danger and is difficult to manage. It takes us to Fantasy Football arrangements where second rowers are rated the game's strongest footballers because they make a million tackles.

And then two seasons later they change the scoring to emphasise the work of halves, then change it again to increase the pull of try scoring. So clubs are continually chasing the scoring system and trying to plan years in advance.

And what do you do if a player intentionally plays poorly for one season for his current club, trying to get his rating down, then signs on with a new club at top dollar and low grading?

Or what do you do if a player is likely very good but is out injured all season?

Or what about a player under disciplinary action who actually is a very good footballer but has a long ban?

It starts to get bananas when you try and quantify everything, measure everything. You can't call it fair, what is fair will be subjective, because the NRL or "stats man" will set the figures. You might say "everyone was graded with the same algorithm", but then they'll say the algorithm is wrong, because it was still set by a person.

And you are no longer allowing people to earn whatever they can based on ability and performance, you are pigeonholing them to an integer based on some formula, and certainly NRL clubs will start paying for the integer value rather than specific value to the club.

J, I've learnt through my work that virtually everything can be quantified, sometimes you just need to come up with a way to measure accurately and consistently. It would not actually be difficult to manage - once the template is set, it's done…

Everything you mention can be included in an overall value - which may be based on 100 fields or maybe even more, I don't know. But there will be no emotion, no grey area, all scores created from the same units of measurement. I don't see this as being much like a Fantasy type value but if you can score points, are prone to injuries or suspension, yes it all goes in the mix as part of your history, and the player scores comparatively more or less than his peers for those particular fields.

If you tank, you'll be dealt with in the same manner that any player has always been!

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I think a fair few of us are forgetting one major thing .
Any attempts to change TPAs will result in legal action by players .
As far as I know they can’t be banned in any way, as it would be a restraint of trade .
If things got really hairy , the players could torpedo the Salarycap as well, as that’s also illegal.
It only works now because the players accept it. Same as the AFL.

It can easily be argued that the salary cap is not an illegal restraint of trade

Didn’t work that way when Terry hill challenged the Draft .
and something was said by the AFL then about the only reason that either the Draft or the Cap would survive was if all players agreed to have either/ without their agreement it was a restraint of trade.
I’d be happy to see the Cap go anyway as it doesn’t work
Sooner or later it will be challenged in court

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

The other option is player ratings/values.

Transparent, based on facts and no restraint of trade etc.

Agree, a nominal value of each player can be calculated, and the total value of 30 players. If this value is above the agreed limit - a club is in breach and has to sell players or is automatically disqualified.
The nominal value of each player is adjusted at the end of the season.
So if a club is successful, wins a title, has many representative players it will be forced to sell some of the players if it wants to compete in the next season.
In this system there is no limit on players payments (TPA or whatever).
The criteria for determination of the nominal value shall be transparent and unchanged for the season.
For instance, HB or FB can be priced on different scale than wingers or props. This value may consist of the real stats e.g. number of tries, try assists, break assists, line breaks, meters run, tackles/missed tackles. Additional criteria can be selection to national team/SOO, this could be adjusted based on the team success e.q, Qld wins SOO all players involved are valued more, or if Australia wins WC all Aus rep players are valued more than teams from NZ, Tonga etc.
One of the consequences could be the contract duration, as each club will readjust after each season.

The poor Bugger who gets the job of working out the value of every player, will be found after a fortnight in the job, in a dark room curled up in the foetal position, babbling incoherently and blowing bubbles,
probably why no major sport anywhere ,( as far as I know) has tried to use that system.
The value of a player is what the market will pay, worth more to some than others.
The Lawyers would love it!
There’s enough problems in the game already, without throwing in a system that’s sillier than what we’ve got,
I’d hate to see how Matt Ballin or someone like him,would have been rated over the last three years. It would make good reading though,

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

You can change it without the players throwing tantrums (which they are prone to do).

Centralising it is a good idea that's come up in this forum. Cut the clubs out. Let the players know any payments from the club are against the rules and both club and player will be smashed hard. (Like police officers/ judges and bribes are meant to be smashed hard)

There are ways to do it, but the biggest problem I see, is that I doubt whether the NRL wants to do it. They appear as corrupt and as influenced by powerbrokers as some of the bigger clubs are.

It’s never going to be a perfect system. This may be the approach which will get us close…... if ...... the NRL has the balls to implement.
As I said before I doubt that will happen whilst Greenberg and Politis of this world are in control and with influence.

I don’t think that it’s got anything to do with whether the League wants to do it or not, the
Clubs would NEVER go for it, and they still hold a hell of a lot of power. Players and managers would most likely be against it as well,
Probably the only people that would go for it would be the grub Lawyers,
There would be a quid in it for them.
Words like SuperLeague would be resurrected again and probably be acted on if it got to that.
The clubs don’t trust the Commission already, so why would they hand more power to them?I
Anyone that thinks that a major change like that , which would require everyone involved being on the same page, is possible , Think again, which of the powerful clubs are seriously going to give up more power to the NRL.

It’s never going to be fair. Really the only real fair system is no Cap and let the market decide who pays what.then the there’ll be no rorting, and the clubs will have to get their acts together and work harder to remain a part of the Competition.
It’s inevitable that some clubs won’t survive in the future anyway and at least that way all clubs will have to get smarter and start and look for better ways raise the money to remain a part of the NRL

In reality any changes that are made to TPAs will most likely be minor, otherwise it’ll be Lawyers at 20 paces, and that’ll make for a fun year in 2019 (NOT)

 

[jirskyr]

I just think it's time to stop focusing on why things might be difficult to do and work toward how we can make good things happen.

You could say exactly the same thing about the current salary cap and TPAs.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I just think the points system is fraught with danger and is difficult to manage. It takes us to Fantasy Football arrangements where second rowers are rated the game's strongest footballers because they make a million tackles.

And then two seasons later they change the scoring to emphasise the work of halves, then change it again to increase the pull of try scoring. So clubs are continually chasing the scoring system and trying to plan years in advance.

And what do you do if a player intentionally plays poorly for one season for his current club, trying to get his rating down, then signs on with a new club at top dollar and low grading?

Or what do you do if a player is likely very good but is out injured all season?

Or what about a player under disciplinary action who actually is a very good footballer but has a long ban?

It starts to get bananas when you try and quantify everything, measure everything. You can't call it fair, what is fair will be subjective, because the NRL or "stats man" will set the figures. You might say "everyone was graded with the same algorithm", but then they'll say the algorithm is wrong, because it was still set by a person.

And you are no longer allowing people to earn whatever they can based on ability and performance, you are pigeonholing them to an integer based on some formula, and certainly NRL clubs will start paying for the integer value rather than specific value to the club.

J, I've learnt through my work that virtually everything can be quantified, sometimes you just need to come up with a way to measure accurately and consistently. It would not actually be difficult to manage - once the template is set, it's done…

Everything you mention can be included in an overall value - which may be based on 100 fields or maybe even more, I don't know. But there will be no emotion, no grey area, all scores created from the same units of measurement. I don't see this as being much like a Fantasy type value but if you can score points, are prone to injuries or suspension, yes it all goes in the mix as part of your history, and the player scores comparatively more or less than his peers for those particular fields.

If you tank, you'll be dealt with in the same manner that any player has always been!

I'm not saying you can't quantify everything, I'm saying you'd be mad to do it.

As GCT says, there might be hundreds of metrics being tracked for this system, and I realise many metrics are already tracked in the code by professional companies, but then you have to apply an inference on each and every metric and keep monitoring that outcome.

Look at the bookies - they have very complicated prediction mechanisms for NRL betting outcomes, but they get it wrong pretty often, 40-50%. The bookie error is offset by the vig.

So people get it wrong about half the time. The system would not be transparent, you could not release massive stats spreadsheets to the public, and the stats companies wouldn't allow it anyway without huge licensing costs.

And you still don't escape the problem - some person or committee has to assign values to every metric, which means it's subject to abstract interpretation.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I think a fair few of us are forgetting one major thing .
Any attempts to change TPAs will result in legal action by players .
As far as I know they can’t be banned in any way, as it would be a restraint of trade .
If things got really hairy , the players could torpedo the Salarycap as well, as that’s also illegal.
It only works now because the players accept it. Same as the AFL.

It can easily be argued that the salary cap is not an illegal restraint of trade

Didn’t work that way when Terry hill challenged the Draft .
and something was said by the AFL then about the only reason that either the Draft or the Cap would survive was if all players agreed to have either/ without their agreement it was a restraint of trade.
I’d be happy to see the Cap go anyway as it doesn’t work
Sooner or later it will be challenged in court

My reasoning is that technically the salary cap is not a restraint of trade because you are not capping a players earning power. One club can pay half the salary cap to one player if they so wish. They don't because they have to balance their spending. There's market forces that allow players to seek the best deal they can and there are provisions for a player to earn money outside of their club deal.

 

[barra]

The other option is player ratings/values.

Transparent, based on facts and no restraint of trade etc.

Agree, a nominal value of each player can be calculated, and the total value of 30 players. If this value is above the agreed limit - a club is in breach and has to sell players or is automatically disqualified.
The nominal value of each player is adjusted at the end of the season.
So if a club is successful, wins a title, has many representative players it will be forced to sell some of the players if it wants to compete in the next season.
In this system there is no limit on players payments (TPA or whatever).
The criteria for determination of the nominal value shall be transparent and unchanged for the season.
For instance, HB or FB can be priced on different scale than wingers or props. This value may consist of the real stats e.g. number of tries, try assists, break assists, line breaks, meters run, tackles/missed tackles. Additional criteria can be selection to national team/SOO, this could be adjusted based on the team success e.q, Qld wins SOO all players involved are valued more, or if Australia wins WC all Aus rep players are valued more than teams from NZ, Tonga etc.
One of the consequences could be the contract duration, as each club will readjust after each season.

The poor Bugger who gets the job of working out the value of every player, will be found after a fortnight in the job, in a dark room curled up in the foetal position, babbling incoherently and blowing bubbles,
probably why no major sport anywhere ,( as far as I know) has tried to use that system.
The value of a player is what the market will pay, worth more to some than others.
The Lawyers would love it!
There’s enough problems in the game already, without throwing in a system that’s sillier than what we’ve got,
I’d hate to see how Matt Ballin or someone like him,would have been rated over the last three years. It would make good reading though,

Pretty sure it would be more than one person needed… you know some people actually enjoy this type of thing and they're very good at it. And measuring is not silly, it's basically how the human race operates - at least the sensible, factual part.

There's a huge difference in the market value of a player (driven by the market) and the value of a player to a team (driven by the player). Nothing for the lawyers, fortunately.

Who knows, if Matt Ballin had been 'rated' his injury/age/etc might have made us steer clear of him?

 

[barra]

J, I've learnt through my work that virtually everything can be quantified, sometimes you just need to come up with a way to measure accurately and consistently. It would not actually be difficult to manage - once the template is set, it's done…

Everything you mention can be included in an overall value - which may be based on 100 fields or maybe even more, I don't know. But there will be no emotion, no grey area, all scores created from the same units of measurement. I don't see this as being much like a Fantasy type value but if you can score points, are prone to injuries or suspension, yes it all goes in the mix as part of your history, and the player scores comparatively more or less than his peers for those particular fields.

If you tank, you'll be dealt with in the same manner that any player has always been!

I'm not saying you can't quantify everything, I'm saying you'd be mad to do it.

As GCT says, there might be hundreds of metrics being tracked for this system, and I realise many metrics are already tracked in the code by professional companies, but then you have to apply an inference on each and every metric and keep monitoring that outcome.

Look at the bookies - they have very complicated prediction mechanisms for NRL betting outcomes, but they get it wrong pretty often, 40-50%. The bookie error is offset by the vig.

So people get it wrong about half the time. The system would not be transparent, you could not release massive stats spreadsheets to the public, and the stats companies wouldn't allow it anyway without huge licensing costs.

And you still don't escape the problem - some person or committee has to assign values to every metric, which means it's subject to abstract interpretation.

Of course the set-up would be massive for it to be done properly. The thing is, you don't need inference, each action by every player causes a reaction and it's either good or bad.

Bookies are totally different - they are predicting, not reflecting - so they have nothing to do with this.

The transparent part would not be the scores it would be the player rating. And knowing that every player is rated on the same programme.

No personal interference would be required, something this far-reaching and detailed would also be using computer power that would be able to assess and determine the score - smart technology available now.

Anyway mate I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on this and probably never have to worry about it anyway… the NRL is far too short sighted to commit to something like this in the near future. They'll just keep propping up an out-dated and failing system, still living in the past and pandering to powerbrokers.

 

[cochise]

I think a fair few of us are forgetting one major thing .
Any attempts to change TPAs will result in legal action by players .
As far as I know they can’t be banned in any way, as it would be a restraint of trade .
If things got really hairy , the players could torpedo the Salarycap as well, as that’s also illegal.
It only works now because the players accept it. Same as the AFL.

It can easily be argued that the salary cap is not an illegal restraint of trade

Didn’t work that way when Terry hill challenged the Draft .
and something was said by the AFL then about the only reason that either the Draft or the Cap would survive was if all players agreed to have either/ without their agreement it was a restraint of trade.
I’d be happy to see the Cap go anyway as it doesn’t work
Sooner or later it will be challenged in court

Yes it can be challenged in court but it would most likely to be found to be a reasonable restraint of trade. It can be argued that the salary cap keeps the NRL and clubs viable and in fact actually protects a players earning capabilities as it allows clubs to break even. If clubs were to become insolvent it can be argued that the players contracted to those clubs would lose their source of income so to an extent the salary cap protects the players income.

Also organisations are allowed protectable interest when restraint of trade is considered, and equal and competition has already been determined in court as a protected interest therefore making the salary cap a reasonable restraint of trade.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Tpa’s have been a disaster for the so called level playing field, and yes they need to be stopped, but it will not stop the cheats,there are to many ways of cheating the system that are impossible to stop.

Also I guess it is a good time to start a investergation after the Chooks have got there roster in place for 2018, Uncle Nick will make sure his club is not disadvantaged

The only hope is that the paper bags are NOT Bio degradable if they are there will
Be no evidence by the time the NRL get around to it

And the other Lawyer would say…..............?