Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

gregjm87 said:
Although I still very much doubt it would create an equal comp, that is not the biggest issue.
How do you possibly create a fair point system that doesn't under-rate/over-rate players? For the players a point system over-rates, how do they then get a fair contract given they will be a points liability? Won't the players under-rated by a point system still only go to the more powerful/cashed up clubs?
These are just the more obvious questions but I could ask plenty more. I'm happy to listen to any actual points system plan out forth but I've never seen anyone put up any without countless flaws that the proposer can't suggest a work around.
Click to expand...
It's one of those "nice idea, would never work in practice" things. You can pick so many holes in it I'm surprised there aren't photos of Kurt Cobain wearing it on stage.

Mainly what would happen is a huge market growing for players with low points ratings. There's no way a points system would be able to assign a fair rating to rookies, so you'd end up with massive bidding wars for people like Makasini. If there's no salary cap, or only a nominal one, you'd get ludicrous distortions like 19 year olds getting offered millions for short-term contracts then suddenly losing huge amounts of their market value when and if their points value goes up.

Then you have the problem of points values being recalculated, presumably, annually. What happens if you have a team that massively overperforms expectations and all the players' values go up, but a lot of them are on contracts that go longer than this year? The Raiders, for instance, would be massively over next season's points cap simply because they've been good. Now they're forced sellers: they get penalised for playing well.

As you say, I could go on all night. It's a completely unworkable concept, which is why no serious competition in the world uses it.
 
Canadian Club said:
Melbourne chased him hard last year on Nov 1 but he chose to stay loyal and re-sign. It's the second time they had tried to get Fonua back down there. His brother will probably make his debut for the Storm in the next 1-2 seasons.

He copped a heap on the forum for his performances at the back end of the year, but he was one of our best players in the opening 10 rounds before he got injured. He's still only 23 and will only get better over the next 3-5 years as he comes into his prime years for props
Click to expand...

He extended last year for 2 years from memory through 2027 …I will be surprised if we keep him beyond that as there has been speculation that he eventually wants to return to Melbourne ..

I think he deserved criticism for his play the back half of the year to be honest …anyhow let’s hope he plays well the next two years as I think he is capable and we need to be better up front
 
Last edited:
2041 said:
It's one of those "nice idea, would never work in practice" things. You can pick so many holes in it I'm surprised there aren't photos of Kurt Cobain wearing it on stage.

Mainly what would happen is a huge market growing for players with low points ratings. There's no way a points system would be able to assign a fair rating to rookies, so you'd end up with massive bidding wars for people like Makasini. If there's no salary cap, or only a nominal one, you'd get ludicrous distortions like 19 year olds getting offered millions for short-term contracts then suddenly losing huge amounts of their market value when and if their points value goes up.

Then you have the problem of points values being recalculated, presumably, annually. What happens if you have a team that massively overperforms expectations and all the players' values go up, but a lot of them are on contracts that go longer than this year? The Raiders, for instance, would be massively over next season's points cap simply because they've been good. Now they're forced sellers: they get penalised for playing well.

As you say, I could go on all night. It's a completely unworkable concept, which is why no serious competition in the world uses it.
Click to expand...
The only thing that would work is a type of transfer system. Maybe where a player debuting for a club is on a discount for that club if his contract goes up. If his contract goes up to $500k, maybe the value against the cap is 75%, or $375k. If he goes elsewhere, his contract is 100% on the cap.
 
gregjm87 said:
It's a delusional idea that instead of having a salary cap each player should be attributed a points value. Each team then is allowed to make up there roster up to a certain point value.
It's believed it will create a more even comp but the biggest flaw no-one can put forth any fair way for the point value attributed to each player.
Click to expand...
You said it. Fantasy football for real-life NRL rosters.
 
Here is how the cap works in Shute Shield rugby - it still doesn't work as it still favours clubs with a high number of Super Rugby players who were colts/juniors ( example 2024 grand final Easts would have had 8 super rugby players and a few international players). Wests Harbour for example only had 1 uncapped Super Rugby player (3 other Super rugby players were not released to play). Anyway this just shows how it will work from 2026 onwards with Shute Shield. Interesting that Wallaby and Super Rugby players can only be paid $500 per game.

1759449269327.png
1759449315396.png
 
TigerTigerTigerTiger said:
Does anybody know if we have to continue to pay for Klemmer, Bateman and Sullivan to play for other clubs next year?
Click to expand...
We are not paying anything for Klemmer, Bateman we are paying for in 2026, Bud we are paying for in 2026 and 2027, so our salary cap is abit iffy in 2026 but it's looking good from 2027 onwards. If we don't make the 8 in 2027 then it's a fail in my opinion.
 
The signing of Bateman by Sheens is his worse signing ever,even more so than his Blair and Anasta signings.I will always be thankful for 2005 but you can't live on that forever.
jstigers said:
We are not paying anything for Klemmer, Bateman we are paying for in 2026, Bud we are paying for in 2026 and 2027, so our salary cap is abit iffy in 2026 but it's looking good from 2027 onwards. If we don't make the 8 in 2027 then it's a fail in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 343 (members: 14, guests: 329)
Back
Top