Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[cochise]

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.

No I got what you meant, but I still don't agree with it, as if the club can't fit him at a value another club wants to pay it takes away his ability to stay. Why should a well managed team be punished for a club on tilt offering stupid money?

 

[Cairnstigers]

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

 

[gallagher]

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?

 

[cochise]

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

 

[cochise]

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

So when would these evaluations of players occur?

 

[gallagher]

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

I missed that. Seems the rankings would change drastically year by year. I don't like these ranking theories, it would all come down to opinions.

 

[jirskyr]

Manly just dusted the Titan 56 to 24, these blowouts are becoming common, aren’t they?

I was about to come on here write the same thing. Eerily similar Manly charging down the Titans right side set after set, getting either a try, a repeat set, a penalty or a lucky 6-again. To basically see two different teams give up 40 point halves and barely touching the football.

I skipped through the replay again, I think Titans had 7 sets total in the second half and zero sets between 28 and 13 minutes remaining.

And funnily enough Titans finished the match with 52% of possession by time.

 

[balmain boy]

Yes sorry Talau should be dropped as well, Cini,Hoffman or cooper given a shot

Cooper for mine. We need improvements in defence and I reckon he’s got it

He doesn't. His front on defence is solid but he's a winger, not a front rower. Only makes 4-5 tackles a game.

His issue is reading the game, being out of position and rushing in unnecessarily. He's like a much much slower version of Roberts

 

[jirskyr]

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.

 

[Cairnstigers]

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?

As written above

The points a player receives is purely based on their peers and maybe some statistical or expert opinions

 

[Cairnstigers]

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

So when would these evaluations of players occur?

It would occur at the end of each season
The club would then have 12 months to shed enough players / Points
People will always come up with excuses as to why it shouldn't happen but that's just what they are, excuses
If teams can manage their cap
Then they can manage a points system like this

 

[hobbo1]

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?

The Plodder scale

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

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

Easy rort. Whoever plays for my team is clearly the worst in their position

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

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

So when would these evaluations of players occur?

It would occur at the end of each season
The club would then have 12 months to shed enough players / Points
People will always come up with excuses as to why it shouldn't happen but that's just what they are, excuses
If teams can manage their cap
Then they can manage a points system like this

Do you can stockpile players for a season. What about when a player does an ACL and misses a year they wouldn’t be one on the 16 from the pry year so zero points

 

[cochise]

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

I missed that. Seems the rankings would change drastically year by year. I don't like these ranking theories, it would all come down to opinions.

I don't either

 

[cochise]

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

So when would these evaluations of players occur?

It would occur at the end of each season
The club would then have 12 months to shed enough players / Points
People will always come up with excuses as to why it shouldn't happen but that's just what they are, excuses
If teams can manage their cap
Then they can manage a points system like this

So they may have to drop players mid contract that they turned into better players?

 

[supercoach]

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

No that is a terrible way of doing it.

That’s fine we all have our own ideas, someone asked me what was my solution. So what is yours??? Or is the current system ok

 

[twentyforty]

Would we be talking about ideas for a level playing field if we were a consistent top 4 team?
WT should focus more on being an ideal destination for players imo.
Here’s what Pangai Junior said in 2019 after he had signed a 3yr deal with Broncos..
“I’m a big fan of ‘Seibs’ and the how he coaches, it’s a big reason why I’m staying. We have no excuses now, we have the best facility, we play at the best stadium, we are a proud brand and it’s an honour to be here.”

 

[Red88_Tiger]

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

Ive heard this suggested before and it would work to spread talent but the rlpa would not accept it and it would not hold up against a legal battle.
It devalues too many players e.g. Why would anyone want an Origin level outside back if you then have no points left for a spine. Additionally, Moses Mbye, Corey Norman and the Lee's are Origin reps. Who would sign such a player at their increase points level? Furthermore your worth decreases with experience.

Dont mean to shoot down ideas but would love to find one that would work for all parties.

If they selected the rep squads of 2 per team I bet that would motivate players to move from the better teams. Might reduce the spectacle in the short term but long term I think could work.

 

[GCfan]

Yes sorry Talau should be dropped as well, Cini,Hoffman or cooper given a shot

Cooper for mine. We need improvements in defence and I reckon he’s got it

He doesn't. His front on defence is solid but he's a winger, not a front rower. Only makes 4-5 tackles a game.

His issue is reading the game, being out of position and rushing in unnecessarily. He's like a much much slower version of Roberts

Fair enough I agree he’s slower than Roberts but from what I’ve seen he’s a much better defender. I guess the question is can we keep Roberts in the centre position, my answer is definitely not after watching him Saturday