Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[Hbom]

Start a draft thread please.

 

[GarryOwen]

I think publicising the NRL salaries across the board would eliminate or lessen a lot of the issues fans have with the current salary cap.

 

[happy_tiger]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

I see no reason why it couldn’t work, but it won’t happen because the people with the power ($) don’t want it.

I don't think it would work, too many variables.


I submitted a paper (upgrades to the current 100 point system) to the Sydney Rugby Union on this a few months ago. I agree it is terribly difficult and will never work unless it is administered appropriately. For fun I used the same method on the Tigers and the Roosters. Very interesting results

What would you base your point allocations on?


Did they play junior football for the club - reduces points
Did they play 1st grade for another club - increases points
Did they play their first grade game at another club - small points increase
Did they play State of Origin - increases points
Did they play for Australia or another tier 1 country - increases points
Did they play play for a 2nd Tier country - increases points
How many games/years have they played for the club - gradually reduces points
Did father or siblings play for the club - reduces points
A marquee allowance for 1-2 players - reduces points
Did they come from another senior sport (rugby/atletics etc) - no point increase
There were others but I can't remember off the top of my head

Thats a few starting ideas - I know there are many issues with this but it was just an attempt to find a workable solution

When I did the comparison between the Tigers and Rooster, the Roosters points were @ double of the Tigers

Points for internationals and origin are extremely problematic. There is also no mechanism in your allocation for differentiating skill level of players.


Yeah my solution for internationals and origin players would a gradual roll back of points. It would depend on how many games they played e.g. 1-5, or 5-10 etc and how long ago they were played. Eg if a player had not played at that level for 4 years no points would be added if it was 2 years it would be 50% point allocation if it was last year it would be 100% points allocation. Skill level of players is really dictated by what grades they have played and how many games also if they have played any rep games.



For me. I would drop TPAs. Allocate the salary to each team and have an additional fund which is given to the bottom 3 teams go help them get up the ladder. Similar to nfl getting the draft pick order.
Sure there may be some teams who tank but it's more fair than the TPA system we have now

You can't get rid of TPAs.

Look the main reason we brought TPA's in was the attraction to rugby union for certain top tier players ...rugby union is a 3rd tier sport now bar NZ .....TPA's are far less important now than they have ever been ......

Rubbish, TPA's were never brought in, they are a simply factor of a market. TPA's used to be included until Craig Wing was nearly forced out of the Roosters because he got his own modelling contracts and a gig on a Foxtel fashion TV channel. The NRL or ARU didnt "invent" TPA's they were literally just forced to face the reality of them.

Let me reword that ...TPA's didn't become serious till we saw the likes of Matt Rogers ,Lote Tuqiri ,karmichael Hunt ,Ryan Cross etc leave the game .....

 

[jadtiger]

I think publicising the NRL salaries across the board would eliminate or lessen a lot of the issues fans have with the current salary cap.

Of course it would but the NRL would have no interest in everyone to see just how incompetent they are and what they allow in a so called "equal" environment

 

[JC99]

I think publicising the NRL salaries across the board would eliminate or lessen a lot of the issues fans have with the current salary cap.


Of course it would but the NRL would have no interest in everyone to see just how incompetent they are and what they allow in a so called "equal" environment

Got nothing to do with the NRL, it's the RLPA who refuse to allow it. They don't want players copping abuse if they're on good money and not performing

 

[jadtiger]

I think publicising the NRL salaries across the board would eliminate or lessen a lot of the issues fans have with the current salary cap.


Of course it would but the NRL would have no interest in everyone to see just how incompetent they are and what they allow in a so called "equal" environment

Got nothing to do with the NRL, it's the RLPA who refuse to allow it. They don't want players copping abuse if they're on good money and not performing

It is the NRL who misadminister the salary cap and allow players to play at lower wages (supposedly) at certain clubs while letting them have payments from elsewhere not under the salary cap.Most supporters would have more respect if the NRL admitted they knew certain clubs are cheating but they are unable to catch them.
The NRL are incompetent at best.

 

[JC99]

I think publicising the NRL salaries across the board would eliminate or lessen a lot of the issues fans have with the current salary cap.


Of course it would but the NRL would have no interest in everyone to see just how incompetent they are and what they allow in a so called "equal" environment

Got nothing to do with the NRL, it's the RLPA who refuse to allow it. They don't want players copping abuse if they're on good money and not performing


It is the NRL who misadminister the salary cap and allow players to play at lower wages (supposedly) at certain clubs while letting them have payments from elsewhere not under the salary cap.Most supporters would have more respect if the NRL admitted they knew certain clubs are cheating but they are unable to catch them.
The NRL are incompetent at best.

Why would that ever happen.... even if player salaries were public clubs would still cheat.

Every time a player goes to a big club it's apparently because they're cheating but players will legitimately go to more successful clubs because it's better for their careers also. No doubt almost every club does dodgy stuff but if you're not a good club then it's gonna be very hard to sign players, look at us!

 

[bptiger 0]

If the tigers sign Hodgson it will be a worst signing than ballin , we don’t need another age pensioner, we are already carring enough dead wood

 

[tony soprano]

If the tigers sign Hodgson it will be a worst signing than ballin , we don’t need another age pensioner, we are already carring enough dead wood

What?? The exciting and gloriously successful future of the club is being crafted by pensioners in Sheens and his bestie, McDonnell. In light of the club's decision for a superannuation pension boost for Marshall, the Hodgson signing should be a done deal. I expect Keith Barnes to be the starting fullback in 2022.

Thanks for your sarcasm. In return yeah pascoe and hartigan were doing such a great job I don't why they changed anything. ?

 

[tony soprano]

If the tigers sign Hodgson it will be a worst signing than ballin , we don’t need another age pensioner, we are already carring enough dead wood

Last year showed we need experience in the 9.

Obviously if he gets injured its not a good signing but if he can stay on the field....

 

[Newtown]

If the tigers sign Hodgson it will be a worst signing than ballin , we don’t need another age pensioner, we are already carring enough dead wood

Last year showed we need experience in the 9.

Obviously if he gets injured its not a good signing but if he can stay on the field....

Last year also showed that the team has not one leader. With Hastings and Hodgson that will significantly change for the better in 2022.

 

[TigerWest]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

 

[weststigerman]

If the tigers sign Hodgson it will be a worst signing than ballin , we don’t need another age pensioner, we are already carring enough dead wood

I think Ballin was injured when we signed him.

Hodgson is the same age Farah was when JT punted him, and 2 years later we signed him back at 34.

It's definitely a risk, but given the way Hodgson plays, there is no reason why he can't do a good job for 2 years.

 

[cochise]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

 

[TigerWest]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

That’s mostly what we have now, it’s not working because clubs are abusing it and cheating it. IMO, development allowance won’t stop non-developing clubs one bit, it will just be part of there costs?

You can’t heat a point valued system.

 

[cochise]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

That’s mostly what we have now, it’s not working because clubs are abusing it and cheating it. IMO, development allowance won’t stop non-developing clubs one bit, it will just be part of there costs?

You can’t heat a point valued system.

Points systems are rubbish as their is no fair way to value players. The current system does not have strong developed and long serving player allowances.

 

[TigerWest]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

That’s mostly what we have now, it’s not working because clubs are abusing it and cheating it. IMO, development allowance won’t stop non-developing clubs one bit, it will just be part of there costs?

You can’t heat a point valued system.

Points systems are rubbish as their is no fair way to value players. The current system does not have strong developed and long serving player allowances.

Well, we will disagree.

 

[cochise]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

That’s mostly what we have now, it’s not working because clubs are abusing it and cheating it. IMO, development allowance won’t stop non-developing clubs one bit, it will just be part of there costs?

You can’t heat a point valued system.

Points systems are rubbish as their is no fair way to value players. The current system does not have strong developed and long serving player allowances.

Well, we will disagree.

So what would you base points on?

 

[TigerWest]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

That’s mostly what we have now, it’s not working because clubs are abusing it and cheating it. IMO, development allowance won’t stop non-developing clubs one bit, it will just be part of there costs?

You can’t heat a point valued system.

Points systems are rubbish as their is no fair way to value players. The current system does not have strong developed and long serving player allowances.

Well, we will disagree.

So what would you base points on?

The NRL would give all players a value, determined in advance, that would be readjusted each year, then all clubs would be allowed a total number of points to set there team up, which can be openly seen.

Salary caps wouldn’t be required, because it can’t be policed.