Salary Cap

[cochise]

I think providing incentives, via cap dispensation could be a great way to encourage players to stick with the same/ home club and help share the talent around. How we do it is the question. Allocate a separate dollar proportion of each club's cap to locally developed players?

That is how I would fix the cap, give proper discounts for long serving and developed players, I am talking about 50% discounts.

 

[Champ1]

This is the same as just putting a salary on that player. I don't like it because how do you judge a players worth. I can see the rorters signing everyone and then arguing they should only be worth x number of points as well.

The problem is rugby league is such a small sport. You need a salary cap. The NBA has a draft and some way to putting caps on players salaries. It probably works though because there is so much talent.

Sorry mate, this has been a long discussion & I know its hard to read all previous posts but that issue has been addressed. Would you like me to give an overview of how i believe the new system would work? Basically its based a on a collection of a lot of ideas from multiple posters here.

 

[earl]

Would you like me to give an overview of how i believe the new system would work?

The problem with a forum and life. If you read every post it's probably good but then what about the rest of your life. Post a link to that or explain it. I don't see how a points system will work. Has it ever worked ?

I like @cochise idea about discounts on various players but the flaw on that is certain clubs will buy every good junior on top dollar.

There is no perfect system but ours needs massive improvements. It works to a degree hence we have the signings we've had this season but certain clubs have massive advantages.

 

[cochise]

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.

There is no error in my logic, I am speaking law not logic. This issue is you do not understand the laws around a restraint of trade, that is ok but you can not point out errors if you do not understand the law.

A restraint of trade needs to be reasonable, that means it needs to provide no more than adequate protection to the employer interests while not being too wide ranging against the employee and no less impactful alternative available.

Now in your original idea you have added that the players salary on the cap would be determined by the highest bid in the market. That increases the protection for the employer and the range against the player. That is why the current salary cap could be found to be reasonable and you original modified idea would like be found to unreasonable as it is now beyond adequate protection and has a greater impact on the player. The current system is also less impactful.

Now your second idea of a point system with unlimited payments is better than your original idea, It could possibly pass the reasonability test in a court of law.

I still don't like the idea as I am not a fan of the opposition determining the value of a player but your point system is better than any I have seen discussed before. I also think the game needs a spend limit to prevent clubs overspending.

 

[cochise]

The problem with a forum and life. If you read every post it's probably good but then what about the rest of your life. Post a link to that or explain it. I don't see how a points system will work. Has it ever worked ?

I like @cochise idea about discounts on various players but the flaw on that is certain clubs will buy every good junior on top dollar.

There is no perfect system but ours needs massive improvements. It works to a degree hence we have the signings we've had this season but certain clubs have massive advantages.

Champs point system is different to most I have seen discussed, he has players points based on a bid by clubs and the highest bid determines what they go on the cap for at their choice of club. I have a number of issues with it but it is an improvement on his original idea.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Easy solution is to have players tax records made available to the NRL auditors. RLPA won't go for it but that's the easiest way to see where players incomes are coming from.

 

[stevied]

Do you think that the NRL should put a base figure on a players worth according to their previous seasons statistics, history and representative status and other facts like age etc and players over a certain amount are deemed marquee status. Then the NRL can put a limit of the number marquee players per club...x amount of forwards and x amount of backs. They could do the same with 2nd and third tier players that have less abilities or credentials.
Throw into that any players that are left out because of shear numbers could go into a draft system where clubs are restricted in the numbers that are awarded???
p.s. marquee.. is that how it's spelt?

I think a number of us are putting up some clever ideas that are worthy of consideration. It would be nice to think that the NRL are conducting own little brains trust to try and nut out the obvious problems with the cap and the spreading of talent. The notion of a base dollar value for a player based on their stats, age, injury record, etc. is a good one as long as it is generated by pure numbers and doesn't become subjective. You would need to find someone really capable to develop a formula for this. It could be quite difficult to include all the variables accurately and fairly. Do you think the monetary baseline of a player would come into being when a contract expires or should it be done at the end of each season? The trouble is that we have players walking out on contracts at the moment. Maybe the League should make contracts binding once more.
Regarding the concept of a draft, is our game ready to consider it?
In the NFL and in other U.S. sports they have players who come up for arbitration after an initial contract period, where they qualify for an automatic increase in their salary after establishing themself in the top grade. I don't completely understand all their systems but, perhaps, the NRL could look at the way things are done over there. Obviously, games like the NFL have a lot more money invested but what I notice is that there never seem to be reports of salary rorting.

 

[Champ1]

The problem with a forum and life. If you read every post it's probably good but then what about the rest of your life. Post a link to that or explain it. I don't see how a points system will work. Has it ever worked ?

I like @cochise idea about discounts on various players but the flaw on that is certain clubs will buy every good junior on top dollar.

There is no perfect system but ours needs massive improvements. It works to a degree hence we have the signings we've had this season but certain clubs have massive advantages.

1- Every club has Points Cap ( say 100)

2-When players come off contract all clubs can bid what they would pay in points for a certain player. The highest bid becomes his value. EG -Mitchell Moses (MM)- Tigers bid 12 points, Parra bid 10 points & Rorters bid 8. MMs value is set by the highest bid (12). With that bid, every point equals 100K. So If Tigs bid 12 points, they have to pay in the contract at least 1.2m for that player & it costs them 12 points off their salary cap.

3-All these bids have to registered with the NRL & stay enforceable unless the club withdraws it. If a player accepts before it is withdrawn, the club has to honor it. This stops clubs registering fake bids just to inflate a players price to disadvantage another club.

4- Say Tigers bid 1.2 for MM but before he accepts the contract , they sign another halfback .They withdraw their contract. MM points value is now reduced to 10 points (Parras bid) as they were the next highest bidder.

5-No players are forced to sign anywhere. Using the above example, Tigers bid is 12 points but MM wants to stay at Parra. All good , it just means that MM will cost Parra 12 points off their salary cap as that is his market determined points value.

6-This does not limit players salaries. As in example above MM is valued at 12 points. His salary is minimum of 1.2M ( 100K for every point value.) However , he is undecided about where to sign so Parra offer him 2m dollars to get him to stay. Even though he now gets 2m, his point value remains the same as the Tigers were only willing to offer 12 points out of their cap (the highest bid that determined his point value).

7-Juniors developed by the club & long serving players receive a discount. Some have suggested 50% for juniors & 5% a year for long serving players. EG-MM market value is 12 points( set by the highest bid.) However because he has been at Parra for 3 years , Parra would get a 15% discount . So MMs points value for Parra would be 10.2 points off their salary cap.
Another example-Local junior Fonua Pole. Rorters bid 4 points for him, however it only costs the Tigers 2 points( 50% discount) off the points cap as he came through our junior system.

Thats the crux of the system. As all points bids have to be registered with the NRL it is transparent & the players points value is set by the market. TPAs & what a player is getting paid above the points value salary(100k for every point) becomes immaterial as all clubs can still only have 100 points worth of talent. It rewards clubs that develop players like the Tigers & Penrith & stops clubs like the Rorters buying the best juniors. Also stops clubs understating a players worth on their salary cap & paying the rest under the table.

It is not too disimilar with what happens under the salary cap stystem now except this is enforcable as it is made public. This a collection of ideas from multiple forum members. There are probably some problems that need sorting here but please feel free to add any ideas .

 

[Champ1]

I think a number of us are putting up some clever ideas that are worthy of consideration. It would be nice to think that the NRL are conducting their little brains trust to try and nut out the obvious problems with the cap and the spreading of talent. The notion of a base dollar value for a player based on their stats, age, injury record, etc. is a good one as long as it is generated by pure numbers and doesn't become subjective. You would need to find someone really capable to find develop formula for this. It could be quite difficult to include all the variables accurately and fairly. Do you think the monetary baseline of a player would come into being when a contract expires or should it be done at the end of each season? The trouble is that we have players walking out on contracts at the moment too. Maybe the League should make contracts binding again too.
Regarding the concept of a draft, is our game ready to consider it?
In the NFL and in other U.S. sports they have players who come up for arbitration after an initial contract period, where they qualify for an automatic increase in their salary after establishing themself in the top grade. I don't completely understand all their systems but, perhaps, the NRL could look at the way things are done over there. Obviously, games like the NFL have a lot more money invested but what I notice is that there never seem to be reports of salary rorting.

As explained by some members smarter than me that a draft would be thrown out in a court of law. Also its hard to force a player to play for a club he doesnt want to.

 

[Champ1]

Easy solution is to have players tax records made available to the NRL auditors. RLPA won't go for it but that's the easiest way to see where players incomes are coming from.

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

 

[Champ1]

There is no error in my logic, I am speaking law not logic. This issue is you do not understand the laws around a restraint of trade, that is ok but you can not point out errors if you do not understand the law.

A restraint of trade needs to be reasonable, that means it needs to provide no more than adequate protection to the employer interests while not being too wide ranging against the employee and no less impactful alternative available.

Now in your original idea you have added that the players salary on the cap would be determined by the highest bid in the market. That increases the protection for the employer and the range against the player. That is why the current salary cap could be found to be reasonable and you original modified idea would like be found to unreasonable as it is now beyond adequate protection and has a greater impact on the player. The current system is also less impactful.

Now your second idea of a point system with unlimited payments is better than your original idea, It could possibly pass the reasonability test in a court of law.

I still don't like the idea as I am not a fan of the opposition determining the value of a player but your point system is better than any I have seen discussed before. I also think the game needs a spend limit to prevent clubs overspending.

I understand your concerns re the opposition determining the value , however I would argue that the market decides the value

 

[cochise]

1- Every club has Points Cap ( say 100)

2-When players come off contract all clubs can bid what they would pay in points for a certain player. The highest bid becomes his value. EG -Mitchell Moses (MM)- Tigers bid 12 points, Parra bid 10 points & Rorters bid 8. MMs value is set by the highest bid (12). With that bid, every point equals 100K. So If Tigs bid 12 points, they have to pay in the contract at least 1.2m for that player & it costs them 12 points off their salary cap.

3-All these bids have to registered with the NRL & stay enforceable unless the club withdraws it. If a player accepts before it is withdrawn, the club has to honor it. This stops clubs registering fake bids just to inflate a players price to disadvantage another club.

4- Say Tigers bid 1.2 for MM but before he accepts the contract , they sign another halfback .They withdraw their contract. MM points value is now reduced to 10 points (Parras bid) as they were the next highest bidder.

5-No players are forced to sign anywhere. Using the above example, Tigers bid is 12 points but MM wants to stay at Parra. All good , it just means that MM will cost Parra 12 points off their salary cap as that is his market determined points value.

6-This does not limit players salaries. As in example above MM is valued at 12 points. His salary is minimum of 1.2M ( 100K for every point value.) However , he is undecided about where to sign so Parra offer him 2m dollars to get him to stay. Even though he now gets 2m, his point value remains the same as the Tigers were only willing to offer 12 points out of their cap (the highest bid that determined his point value).

7-Juniors developed by the club & long serving players receive a discount. Some have suggested 50% for juniors & 5% a year for long serving players. EG-MM market value is 12 points( set by the highest bid.) However because he has been at Parra for 3 years , Parra would get a 15% discount . So MMs points value for Parra would be 10.2 points off their salary cap.
Another example-Local junior Fonua Pole. Rorters bid 4 points for him, however it only costs the Tigers 2 points( 50% discount) off the points cap as he came through our junior system.

Thats the crux of the system. As all points bids have to be registered with the NRL it is transparent & the players points value is set by the market. TPAs & what a player is getting paid above the points value salary(100k for every point) becomes immaterial as all clubs can still only have 100 points worth of talent. It rewards clubs that develop players like the Tigers & Penrith & stops clubs like the Rorters buying the best juniors. Also stops clubs understating a players worth on their salary cap & paying the rest under the table.

It is not too disimilar with what happens under the salary cap stystem now except this is enforcable as it is made public. This a collection of ideas from multiple forum members. There are probably some problems that need sorting here but please feel free to add any ideas .

I know you and I have been disagreeing a lot in this conversation, but that is probably the best alternate system I have seen, I still have issues with it but mate that is not a bad effort.

 

[cochise]

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.

 

[earl]

This a collection of ideas from multiple forum members

It's pretty awesome. The flaw is really that the players won't go for it because it'd stop some players earning more money. If you know only one club is offering what you are in points you could bid up more points but pay him less than what he would get at another club. This is basically fixing the current rort in the cap.

 

[earl]

Regarding the concept of a draft, is our game ready to consider it?

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.

 

[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.

All good questions....

 

[weststigers]

That's right. You can't prove it though.
That's why NRL need to rubber stamp
all TPA's and audit clubs yearly
as I mentioned. Clubs don't play
fair, it all stinks to high heavens.
We can talk about the salary cap
all we want, but TPA's are the issue

Yes, but the NRL cannot audit the businesses behind the TPA’s.

It’s perfectly legitimate to sponsor a player. The NRL would rubber stamp this tomorrow.

After that, if Uncle Nick transfers funds from his car dealership to the sponsor, how would the NRL rubber stamping the initial deal help in reducing dodgy TPA’s?

 

[weststigers]

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.

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.