@cochise said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394746) said:
@gallagher said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394745) said:
@cairnstigers said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394744) said:
@tigerballs said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394719) said:
@cochise said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394704) said:
@tigerballs said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394695) said:
@supercoach said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394650) said:
@gregjm87 said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394604) said:
@supercoach said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394603) said:
@gregjm87 said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394585) said:
@gallagher said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394544) said:
@earl said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394542) said:
@gallagher said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394523) said:
@earl said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394513) said:
@yeahcaz said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1394501) said:
Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.
To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.
Really? What would draw you to us?
Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.
But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.
agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.
The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.
Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap
got any solutions?
I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests
100% correct. I'd expand on that by making it a dollar value and the market would set the rate, so if one club offers x, another can't offer y and use the old "they want to come here to win a comp so they took less".
I'd also make the initial rookie contract at a club the value of that player until that player decides to go elsewhere, so, for example, Alex Seyfarth would always be valued on the WT cap as say $250k, no matter what WT are actually paying him, but if he chose to leave he would be valued at his new club at market rate. That would encourage clubs to either develop their juniors or scout them very early, rather than just buy the guts out of poorer clubs.
I know this means a club with plenty of good juniors would be actually paying way over the agreed value of their roster, or the salary cap, but the better roster should also attract better sponsorship and TPA's.
I can't agree with that either, players deserve a say in where they play and if they want to take less to play for a team I wouldn't want to prevent that.
I do believe there should be salary cap concessions for long term and developed players larger than there is now but keeping them at their rookie levels goes too far the other way.
Yep, sorry, I'll clarify:
Players can choose to take less but they should be allocated a true market value as their cost to the clubs cap, otherwise the Roosters still end up with everyone.
I know the rookie contract bit is a bit of a reach, but you get my drift on rewarding junior development and discouraging raiding. Maybe a maximum value of 500k?
If Teddy was going to be a salary cap cost of, say $800k to the Roosters, along with Luke Keary at $800k, JWH at $500, Cooper Cronk $1m, Angus Chricton $800, there's 40% of their cap gone on 5 players. They've got to start pulling their heads in rather than chasing someone else's gun edge to replace Boyd Cordner.
Why can't it be looked at like this
Use a rating system for the top players in each position across all clubs
Eg the 16 starting fullbacks get rated by there peers and get a ranking from 1 to 16
Tedesco gets a 1 Trbojevic a 2 Papenhuyzen a 3 and so on
In the end when you add up all the scores your players receive your team is given a score
If you had the best 13 players in each position you would have a score of 16
If you have the worst players in each position you would have a score of 208
If every team had an even distribution of quality players the average score per team would be around 104 points
That is what the league should be trying to achieve
It takes the $ out of the equation so it doesn't matter if a team tries to cheat the cap
It won't work
The points a player receives is purely based on their peers and maybe some statistical or expert opinions
You would find it hard to argue against that system although some teams may not like it
If you exceed your points then you should be made to release a player or two to get it back in line with and acceptable average plus or minus 5%
Now in saying all of that, if a team was in excess of the average points score, they should not be allowed to sign a player that increases their average score
So someone like Brandon Smith would not be allowed to go to someone like the Roosters unless they were in the points position to do so
This system would eventually even the playing field
It should also not deprive a player from his earnings
Also players who play all their junior football at the one club and get developed by that club could receive some kind of points relief while at the same club
You could also have another points system for the next best 13 players at each club to stop the stock piling
This would force the talent to spread across all clubs
Who ranks the players?
In his system the players do
Players ranking players? That would be just open to rorting. Say Roosters are repeat premiers and everyone wants to take them down a peg, so they independently (or in collusion) decide to vote Tedesco as 15th-best fullback and either (a) upset the Roosters apple cart, or (b) push Tedesco out of their delicately-balanced roster.
Also I can think of a tonne of issues:
(1) Under this system you'd have to have a minimum score.
(2) What if you only have 7 points left in your cap, you are forced to choose not by position (or lesser player) but by 7th-ranked in any position across the league? What happens if those players are already taken? What happens if that player doesn't want to go?
(3) How do you score positions with more than 2 per side, e.g. props, centres, wingers?
(4) How do you rank debutants, reserve-graders, benchies?
(5) Obvious backlash of having to vote someone "the worst".
(6) Probably not workable with multi-year deals. What happens if Nathan Cleary is worth 10 his first year, 4 his second, 1 his third year? You might have to shed him because he's suddenly "too cheap", and be forced to buy a less-good nuffie halfback to get your roster back in order.
(7) If you have 3 of the best players in the comp (scoring 1 each), say the target was the average 104 points, you'd have to spend a minimum 101 points on the remaining 10 players (OP seems to ignore the bench), which means 10.1 points average, i.e. 10th worst player in every other position. The teams would appear to get very un-even? My brain says the outcome would end up being forcing only 1 or 2 of the best players to every club, otherwise they'd ultimately be short on points, unless the intentionally played the known "worst" players to balance out the ace players.
(8) Say a team manages to collect the 4 best spine players, meaning they need to spend 100 points on the remaining 9 positions = 11th worst (or worse) players everywhere else. Can they still win the comp by stacking a position?
(9) What if a player retires mid-season or is injured for the season? How do you ensure your team meets points minimum if you don't have a like-for-like replacement in that position for the correct number of points?
(10) What happens if someone starts the season with very low ranking but ends up becoming the best player in the comp? Do you then have to release that excessively inexpensive player just one year after they come good?
(11) Where is the reward for identifying and retaining junior talent if your peers decide to up-vote that player mid-contract and you can no longer afford (points afford) to keep them? E.g. if you have some red hot junior nobody has really gauged yet, bursts onto the scene, your team is already half-decent and you have to shed that player the first year after they become famous and play rep footy. Think about how long Storm would have been able to retain Papenhuyzen after his breakout.
