Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[BAGNF05]

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?

Those things would have to be worked out
But every year a number of players come off contract
Say you have 7 players coming off contract and their points tally was 50
You may need to fill those 7 positions with say 70 points otherwise you won't fit within the allocated points system
The better the player the lower the point they carry

It's really not to different from players being forced out of a club because of cap constraints due to a club being successful

These things happen
So look at Penrith for example
They have had to release Hetherington, Tetevano, Tamou, Laurie, Mansour, Dean Whare all last year because of cap constraints
Adding a points system to your players would even up the competition
If it doesn't happen we may as well give up because the competition will never be even
We will continue to have lop sided scores
No of us want that
How many people are turning off early or walking out of games early
Something is wrong with the way this is all working out at the moment


Horse racing has weight handicaps is that fair ?
Golf can have handicaps
Drag racing has time handicaps
All these things don't seem fair, but they work to even up the competition

Its completely different as their valuation could completely change mid contract.

Just because one players value increases doesn't mean they all do
Some players values will fall creating space
If a players value increases it doesn't mean you off load him
What it means is the players who are off contract may need to be replaced with a player of lesser value
I guess I am talking of situations like when Roosters signed Cronk and Teddy
They already had a very strong team full of origin and Australian and international players
All of a sudden they sign two more of the best players available
That needs to stop or this game and many clubs will be ruined
How many of us will continue to follow the Tigers in 10 to 15 years if we continue to get flogged and miss the 8
Many of us will walk away from following the game

Yeah and what if the ones that increase are the ones you have on contract and the ones that decrease are the ones coming off contract, it would decimate a team and they may not be able to sign players to replace the off contract players. I think it would be a terrible system and would much prefer what we have now with centralised contracts and payments.

And that won't work when players want to go to strong clubs and take understand to do so
It's easy to come up with reasons why the system shouldn't change or to find holes in someone's Suggestions
All I know is the current system is not working and there needs to be a fix
Or we might as well have two conferences and be done with it

If you don't point out holes in someone's suggestions then you end up in a worst place than we are now. I do not think a points based system is better than what we currently have.

At the moment the cap isn't working because of players willing to take unders to go to a stronger club
They may also get other un reported benefits

By introducing a system that evens the playing field on the ability of players at each club, you will end up with a much more even competition and much closer games then those we currently have
It also takes out getting paid unders and un reported benefits out of the equation

An even competition will keep all supporters interested in watching the full game and not turn off at half time because that is what is happening now

Centralised payments through the Nrl won't achieve an even playing field when players are willing to take unders

The whole idea of the cap was to even the competition and make it a closer competition That has clearly not worked and never will

A point system will not work, it is too subjective and punishing a team mid contract for a player improving is counter productive.

Ok then
Let's say Penrith win the competition and they have 7 players off contract at the end of the season
Because they win the comp the seven players value is likely to increase and they all want a contract upgrade
But the cap restricts that from happening so Penrith need to release players to stay under the cap
Is that not counter productive and punishing a team

Having to manage your cap to fit in players under your allowance or having to manage your points in which you have to fit players within your allowance both result in clubs needing to release players
One of them is determined by $
The other by the talent in your team
Either way players are forced out of clubs

How do they replace those players when the 23 left all have increases to their points as well?

Sorry to jump in. Rookies would be on lower points and would need to come in to fill the gaps left by players on higher points. It’s a system used in various Park football comps. It will never get signed off by god, sorry, Nick.

It's a rubbish system and far too subjective. All it will lead to his complaints about player valuations.

Not necessarily. If you base it on objective things like rep games and dally m voting it could work. We argue about everything in footy anyway ?

Which then disadvantages Queenslanders as per head more play state of origin, do you value pacific island test reps as high as Australian as most of those teams have lower level player representing than the big 3 nations. Then if you value them lower what if the best player in the world is playing in the lower value internationals.

If you go Dally m voting, it is voted by the media and some of the pics are ridiculous, then it is also only a 321 system, many players don't get a single point during the season.

The biggest problem with a points based system is a players value fluctuates season to season and it is a joke to punish a team for a player improving mid contract.

Can see you’ve thought about it. I think people are just dirty on the current system because it’s a farce. History says cheat the cap and you’ll enjoy a long period of success. Fact.

Yeah mate I think about this stuff an awful lot, I am a bit of a nerd lol. I once come up with a new top 8 finals system based off the old top 4 and top 5 models just for fun, it is a really good system by the way.

I get people don't like the current system, but I honestly don't think the alternatives area any better. You could improve a points based system by having players points assigned at the time of signing a new contract and they keep those points for the duration of the contract, but that still leaves the problem of how you determine the points. In the past I've seen people suggest using the amounts of game a player has played but that idea is a complete farce. If you are using rep games what happens when the only reason a player played rep games was that another player was injured, does he get more points than the player that would have been chosen before him but was injured? Do we really want Brad Fittler determining player points with his selections?

I honestly think the current system is the better system but needs centralised contracts and payments and stiffer penalties for cheating the cap, imagine of we banned a player for 2 years for taking under the table payments or had a team start on -5 points each season for the next 3 years.

They should have just kicked the Storm and Parra out. We’d always run 7th and be satisfied

 

[weststigers]

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?

Those things would have to be worked out
But every year a number of players come off contract
Say you have 7 players coming off contract and their points tally was 50
You may need to fill those 7 positions with say 70 points otherwise you won't fit within the allocated points system
The better the player the lower the point they carry

It's really not to different from players being forced out of a club because of cap constraints due to a club being successful

These things happen
So look at Penrith for example
They have had to release Hetherington, Tetevano, Tamou, Laurie, Mansour, Dean Whare all last year because of cap constraints
Adding a points system to your players would even up the competition
If it doesn't happen we may as well give up because the competition will never be even
We will continue to have lop sided scores
No of us want that
How many people are turning off early or walking out of games early
Something is wrong with the way this is all working out at the moment


Horse racing has weight handicaps is that fair ?
Golf can have handicaps
Drag racing has time handicaps
All these things don't seem fair, but they work to even up the competition

Its completely different as their valuation could completely change mid contract.

Just because one players value increases doesn't mean they all do
Some players values will fall creating space
If a players value increases it doesn't mean you off load him
What it means is the players who are off contract may need to be replaced with a player of lesser value
I guess I am talking of situations like when Roosters signed Cronk and Teddy
They already had a very strong team full of origin and Australian and international players
All of a sudden they sign two more of the best players available
That needs to stop or this game and many clubs will be ruined
How many of us will continue to follow the Tigers in 10 to 15 years if we continue to get flogged and miss the 8
Many of us will walk away from following the game

Yeah and what if the ones that increase are the ones you have on contract and the ones that decrease are the ones coming off contract, it would decimate a team and they may not be able to sign players to replace the off contract players. I think it would be a terrible system and would much prefer what we have now with centralised contracts and payments.

And that won't work when players want to go to strong clubs and take understand to do so
It's easy to come up with reasons why the system shouldn't change or to find holes in someone's Suggestions
All I know is the current system is not working and there needs to be a fix
Or we might as well have two conferences and be done with it

If you don't point out holes in someone's suggestions then you end up in a worst place than we are now. I do not think a points based system is better than what we currently have.

At the moment the cap isn't working because of players willing to take unders to go to a stronger club
They may also get other un reported benefits

By introducing a system that evens the playing field on the ability of players at each club, you will end up with a much more even competition and much closer games then those we currently have
It also takes out getting paid unders and un reported benefits out of the equation

An even competition will keep all supporters interested in watching the full game and not turn off at half time because that is what is happening now

Centralised payments through the Nrl won't achieve an even playing field when players are willing to take unders

The whole idea of the cap was to even the competition and make it a closer competition That has clearly not worked and never will

A point system will not work, it is too subjective and punishing a team mid contract for a player improving is counter productive.

Ok then
Let's say Penrith win the competition and they have 7 players off contract at the end of the season
Because they win the comp the seven players value is likely to increase and they all want a contract upgrade
But the cap restricts that from happening so Penrith need to release players to stay under the cap
Is that not counter productive and punishing a team

Having to manage your cap to fit in players under your allowance or having to manage your points in which you have to fit players within your allowance both result in clubs needing to release players
One of them is determined by $
The other by the talent in your team
Either way players are forced out of clubs

How do they replace those players when the 23 left all have increases to their points as well?

Sorry to jump in. Rookies would be on lower points and would need to come in to fill the gaps left by players on higher points. It’s a system used in various Park football comps. It will never get signed off by god, sorry, Nick.

It's a rubbish system and far too subjective. All it will lead to his complaints about player valuations.

This…

Plus, you would have to layer the points system over the salary cap…what a nightmare.

People only look at the top end of town, but we have players playing for us well under what other clubs would pay for them now like Daine Laurie.

Even centralised contracts won’t stop under the table payments unless the NRL mandates that a player must go to the highest bidder. Probably falls under restraint of trade though.

If equalisation is the end game, and I’m not in favour of it, you would simply mandate that teams can only field a max of, say 3 origin players and 3 top tier internationals (NZ, AUS, GB) or some variation of that. That would force teams to restructure their rosters, but it also means lots of cattle trading every year. Depends what the objectives are I guess.

 

[PJ_]

Need to reinvent ourselves. We've been failures for too long now, it's in our DNA.
Need massive changes from front office, all the way down.
It's not just a roster fix, it's attitude.

 

[Telltails]

Need to reinvent ourselves. We've been failures for too long now, it's in our DNA.
Need massive changes from front office, all the way down.
It's not just a roster fix, it's attitude.

Who is currently our best player/ players? Do we even have one.
Compare that to the Melbourne and Penrith Roosters South's Manly Parramatta - its definitely about roster.
Take the best players out of any team and we can compete with them despite coaches facilities, board, grounds fans etc.
The problem is there is not enough talent to go around and those that are talented want to play with other talented players for obvious reasons.
We can continue to sack and employ individuals for our failures but until we unearth the talent and keep them results on the field won't change.

 

[boonboon]

2 things that would fix the cap - 1. Make all salaries public and 2. Remove the need for clubs to spend a min 95% every year.

As for the tigers I actually think we are on the right track finally with our roster as we have brought in a lot of star juniors. What we havent had is the 3 top of the line players and we dont seem like we can recruit them and in reality most clubs cant. So we need to grow them and bring in the best juniors which is what qe have started doing over the last 2 yrs. We just need prob 1-2 more yrs for that to come to fruition and not go out and buy over the hill over priced players.

 

[nuggetron]

Need to reinvent ourselves. We've been failures for too long now, it's in our DNA.
Need massive changes from front office, all the way down.
It's not just a roster fix, it's attitude.


Who is currently our best player/ players? Do we even have one.
Compare that to the Melbourne and Penrith Roosters South's Manly Parramatta - its definitely about roster.
Take the best players out of any team and we can compete with them despite coaches facilities, board, grounds fans etc.

That raises the query of there was no combination/training; ie take mitchell, cook, walker, reynolds out of the bunnies and replace them with say AJ, marshall and whoever else. are we beating them cause we are better or are we beating them because the bunnies have got their combinations and plays down pack due to such large disruption to the team?

The problem is there is not enough talent to go around and those that are talented want to play with other talented players for obvious reasons.

agree 100% and they want a 17th team haha

We can continue to sack and employ individuals for our failures but until we unearth the talent and keep results on the field won't change.

 

[the_third]

Hot off "reddit"


Lower value official contract that is. Free accommo, meals, car, rental for his folks. Does Pangai have straight teeth?

t forget the petty cash offices that refunds most expenses

 

[carltonleach]

Was just looking at players off contract 2021 and only just realised apparently Angus chrichton is on a million a season ? Is that correct? Very unsure how the roosters are under the sombrero even!!

 

[BAGNF05]

Was just looking at players off contract 2021 and only just realised apparently Angus chrichton is on a million a season ? Is that correct? Very unsure how the roosters are under the sombrero even!!

Uncle Nick is a car salesman, a billionaire and a a magician

 

[carltonleach]

Was just looking at players off contract 2021 and only just realised apparently Angus chrichton is on a million a season ? Is that correct? Very unsure how the roosters are under the sombrero even!!

Uncle Nick is a car salesman, a billionaire and a a magician

How do we get him on board lol, has he not seen our facilities why wouldn’t he wanna come on board ?

 

[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?

Those things would have to be worked out
But every year a number of players come off contract
Say you have 7 players coming off contract and their points tally was 50
You may need to fill those 7 positions with say 70 points otherwise you won't fit within the allocated points system
The better the player the lower the point they carry

It's really not to different from players being forced out of a club because of cap constraints due to a club being successful

These things happen
So look at Penrith for example
They have had to release Hetherington, Tetevano, Tamou, Laurie, Mansour, Dean Whare all last year because of cap constraints
Adding a points system to your players would even up the competition
If it doesn't happen we may as well give up because the competition will never be even
We will continue to have lop sided scores
No of us want that
How many people are turning off early or walking out of games early
Something is wrong with the way this is all working out at the moment


Horse racing has weight handicaps is that fair ?
Golf can have handicaps
Drag racing has time handicaps
All these things don't seem fair, but they work to even up the competition

Its completely different as their valuation could completely change mid contract.

Just because one players value increases doesn't mean they all do
Some players values will fall creating space
If a players value increases it doesn't mean you off load him
What it means is the players who are off contract may need to be replaced with a player of lesser value
I guess I am talking of situations like when Roosters signed Cronk and Teddy
They already had a very strong team full of origin and Australian and international players
All of a sudden they sign two more of the best players available
That needs to stop or this game and many clubs will be ruined
How many of us will continue to follow the Tigers in 10 to 15 years if we continue to get flogged and miss the 8
Many of us will walk away from following the game

Yeah and what if the ones that increase are the ones you have on contract and the ones that decrease are the ones coming off contract, it would decimate a team and they may not be able to sign players to replace the off contract players. I think it would be a terrible system and would much prefer what we have now with centralised contracts and payments.

And that won't work when players want to go to strong clubs and take understand to do so
It's easy to come up with reasons why the system shouldn't change or to find holes in someone's Suggestions
All I know is the current system is not working and there needs to be a fix
Or we might as well have two conferences and be done with it

If you don't point out holes in someone's suggestions then you end up in a worst place than we are now. I do not think a points based system is better than what we currently have.

At the moment the cap isn't working because of players willing to take unders to go to a stronger club
They may also get other un reported benefits

By introducing a system that evens the playing field on the ability of players at each club, you will end up with a much more even competition and much closer games then those we currently have
It also takes out getting paid unders and un reported benefits out of the equation

An even competition will keep all supporters interested in watching the full game and not turn off at half time because that is what is happening now

Centralised payments through the Nrl won't achieve an even playing field when players are willing to take unders

The whole idea of the cap was to even the competition and make it a closer competition That has clearly not worked and never will

A point system will not work, it is too subjective and punishing a team mid contract for a player improving is counter productive.

Ok then
Let's say Penrith win the competition and they have 7 players off contract at the end of the season
Because they win the comp the seven players value is likely to increase and they all want a contract upgrade
But the cap restricts that from happening so Penrith need to release players to stay under the cap
Is that not counter productive and punishing a team

Having to manage your cap to fit in players under your allowance or having to manage your points in which you have to fit players within your allowance both result in clubs needing to release players
One of them is determined by $
The other by the talent in your team
Either way players are forced out of clubs

How do they replace those players when the 23 left all have increases to their points as well?

Sorry to jump in. Rookies would be on lower points and would need to come in to fill the gaps left by players on higher points. It’s a system used in various Park football comps. It will never get signed off by god, sorry, Nick.

It's a rubbish system and far too subjective. All it will lead to his complaints about player valuations.

This…

Plus, you would have to layer the points system over the salary cap…what a nightmare.

People only look at the top end of town, but we have players playing for us well under what other clubs would pay for them now like Daine Laurie.

Even centralised contracts won’t stop under the table payments unless the NRL mandates that a player must go to the highest bidder. Probably falls under restraint of trade though.

If equalisation is the end game, and I’m not in favour of it, you would simply mandate that teams can only field a max of, say 3 origin players and 3 top tier internationals (NZ, AUS, GB) or some variation of that. That would force teams to restructure their rosters, but it also means lots of cattle trading every year. Depends what the objectives are I guess.

That would just mean the top teams stock up in the best pacific islander talent and would disadvantage players from the top tier internationals

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Reckon Ken Maumalo must be wondering what the hell has he got himself in for.

Nah Warriors are not as bad as us but also chronic disappointments

You really think so? They’ve been away from home for 2 years and are still in finals contention

 

[BAGNF05]

Reckon Ken Maumalo must be wondering what the hell has he got himself in for.

Nah Warriors are not as bad as us but also chronic disappointments


You really think so? They’ve been away from home for 2 years and are still in finals contention

I said their not as bad as us. But their finals and grand final record throughout 25 odd years is pretty ordinary. Hats off they are having a dig since COVID but haven’t made any finals series.

 

[weststigers]

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?

Those things would have to be worked out
But every year a number of players come off contract
Say you have 7 players coming off contract and their points tally was 50
You may need to fill those 7 positions with say 70 points otherwise you won't fit within the allocated points system
The better the player the lower the point they carry

It's really not to different from players being forced out of a club because of cap constraints due to a club being successful

These things happen
So look at Penrith for example
They have had to release Hetherington, Tetevano, Tamou, Laurie, Mansour, Dean Whare all last year because of cap constraints
Adding a points system to your players would even up the competition
If it doesn't happen we may as well give up because the competition will never be even
We will continue to have lop sided scores
No of us want that
How many people are turning off early or walking out of games early
Something is wrong with the way this is all working out at the moment


Horse racing has weight handicaps is that fair ?
Golf can have handicaps
Drag racing has time handicaps
All these things don't seem fair, but they work to even up the competition

Its completely different as their valuation could completely change mid contract.

Just because one players value increases doesn't mean they all do
Some players values will fall creating space
If a players value increases it doesn't mean you off load him
What it means is the players who are off contract may need to be replaced with a player of lesser value
I guess I am talking of situations like when Roosters signed Cronk and Teddy
They already had a very strong team full of origin and Australian and international players
All of a sudden they sign two more of the best players available
That needs to stop or this game and many clubs will be ruined
How many of us will continue to follow the Tigers in 10 to 15 years if we continue to get flogged and miss the 8
Many of us will walk away from following the game

Yeah and what if the ones that increase are the ones you have on contract and the ones that decrease are the ones coming off contract, it would decimate a team and they may not be able to sign players to replace the off contract players. I think it would be a terrible system and would much prefer what we have now with centralised contracts and payments.

And that won't work when players want to go to strong clubs and take understand to do so
It's easy to come up with reasons why the system shouldn't change or to find holes in someone's Suggestions
All I know is the current system is not working and there needs to be a fix
Or we might as well have two conferences and be done with it

If you don't point out holes in someone's suggestions then you end up in a worst place than we are now. I do not think a points based system is better than what we currently have.

At the moment the cap isn't working because of players willing to take unders to go to a stronger club
They may also get other un reported benefits

By introducing a system that evens the playing field on the ability of players at each club, you will end up with a much more even competition and much closer games then those we currently have
It also takes out getting paid unders and un reported benefits out of the equation

An even competition will keep all supporters interested in watching the full game and not turn off at half time because that is what is happening now

Centralised payments through the Nrl won't achieve an even playing field when players are willing to take unders

The whole idea of the cap was to even the competition and make it a closer competition That has clearly not worked and never will

A point system will not work, it is too subjective and punishing a team mid contract for a player improving is counter productive.

Ok then
Let's say Penrith win the competition and they have 7 players off contract at the end of the season
Because they win the comp the seven players value is likely to increase and they all want a contract upgrade
But the cap restricts that from happening so Penrith need to release players to stay under the cap
Is that not counter productive and punishing a team

Having to manage your cap to fit in players under your allowance or having to manage your points in which you have to fit players within your allowance both result in clubs needing to release players
One of them is determined by $
The other by the talent in your team
Either way players are forced out of clubs

How do they replace those players when the 23 left all have increases to their points as well?

Sorry to jump in. Rookies would be on lower points and would need to come in to fill the gaps left by players on higher points. It’s a system used in various Park football comps. It will never get signed off by god, sorry, Nick.

It's a rubbish system and far too subjective. All it will lead to his complaints about player valuations.

This…

Plus, you would have to layer the points system over the salary cap…what a nightmare.

People only look at the top end of town, but we have players playing for us well under what other clubs would pay for them now like Daine Laurie.

Even centralised contracts won’t stop under the table payments unless the NRL mandates that a player must go to the highest bidder. Probably falls under restraint of trade though.

If equalisation is the end game, and I’m not in favour of it, you would simply mandate that teams can only field a max of, say 3 origin players and 3 top tier internationals (NZ, AUS, GB) or some variation of that. That would force teams to restructure their rosters, but it also means lots of cattle trading every year. Depends what the objectives are I guess.

That would just mean the top teams stock up in the best pacific islander talent and would disadvantage players from the top tier internationals

Exactly...you and I agree....the cap, while imperfect, is the most perfect of the alternatives.

 

[hsvjones]

I just watched this 6min clip on NRL on Nine 100% footy and just makes me feel sick..
(The insane Premiership-winning team that deserted the tigers is what the article is called)
Gallen and Gus were the main talkers and just listening to them basically say we are the most least preferred club to players and we are in a world of pain... But I can only agree with them because its true... hard to say but it's true.
Our roster is bog average and we CANNOT attract quality players like every other club so something has to change and change urgently.

I understand we are building from the ground up and foundations have been set but at the end of the day a footy club is based on on field results and we clearly lack them.

If the perception is no one wants to come here what do we do to change this as it is a MASSIVE problem.. Even the 2 teams below us on the ladder can attract Top Line players.. I have been on board with Madge and co for a while now but when you hear straight from Ex-players mouths that no one wants to come here, you need to take notice as they are not gaining anything out of there comments.

Do we change coaches ?
Do we buy let Sheens take over recruitment?
Do we need to replace some of the top dogs?

IDK but we sure need some positive news ASAP. :man-shrugging:

 

[TigerTownSFS]

I love brooks but we all need to move on. Bring in Pearce for 2 or 3 years and develop another half. Brooks is a confidence player who needs to play in a strong team or in a weak comp (super league).

 

[yeahcaz]

I just watched this 6min clip on NRL on Nine 100% footy and just makes me feel sick..
(The insane Premiership-winning team that deserted the tigers is what the article is called)
Gallen and Gus were the main talkers and just listening to them basically say we are the most least preferred club to players and we are in a world of pain... But I can only agree with them because its true... hard to say but it's true.
Our roster is bog average and we CANNOT attract quality players like every other club so something has to change and change urgently.

I understand we are building from the ground up and foundations have been set but at the end of the day a footy club is based on on field results and we clearly lack them.

If the perception is no one wants to come here what do we do to change this as it is a MASSIVE problem.. Even the 2 teams below us on the ladder can attract Top Line players.. I have been on board with Madge and co for a while now but when you hear straight from Ex-players mouths that no one wants to come here, you need to take notice as they are not gaining anything out of there comments.

Do we change coaches ?
Do we buy let Sheens take over recruitment?
Do we need to replace some of the top dogs?

IDK but we sure need some positive news ASAP. :man-shrugging:

As much as I dislike him, buzz makes the same point on 360 everytime others say “oh it’s just the players”

Madge has been NZ coach since before he came to us and so far that’s only helped us get one player who’s literally been pushed out of their current club. He has absolutely no pull power at the moment. Craig Fitzgibbon isn’t even a first grade coach yet and he’s already convinced nicho hynes to sign long term as well get talented youngsters in Kennedy, rudolf and talakai to re sign long term.

 

[yeahcaz]

I love brooks but we all need to move on. Bring in Pearce for 2 or 3 years and develop another half. Brooks is a confidence player who needs to play in a strong team or in a weak comp (super league).

Agreed. Cut Moses and Brooks next year, regardless of what we have to pay elsewhere. We just have to move on. I’d seriously consider Pearce or Johnson, or even both on short term deals

 

[TigerTownSFS]

I love brooks but we all need to move on. Bring in Pearce for 2 or 3 years and develop another half. Brooks is a confidence player who needs to play in a strong team or in a weak comp (super league).

Agreed. Cut Moses and Brooks next year, regardless of what we have to pay elsewhere. We just have to move on. I’d seriously consider Pearce or Johnson, or even both on short term deals

It’s not like we have great prospects at 6/7 that would be blocked by Pearce/Johnson. We need some experience and leadership in the halves.

 

[JC99]

I love brooks but we all need to move on. Bring in Pearce for 2 or 3 years and develop another half. Brooks is a confidence player who needs to play in a strong team or in a weak comp (super league).

Agree with moving past brooks but don't think Pearce is the guy, he's been pretty average last few years. Johnson has been playing much better but he's not exactly a game managing halfback either, plays more like a 5/8

Tigers will continue sticking with brooks though he will probably retire here lol. He's been playing better but he's just got no voice out there, he's no leader but he wants to control the team.