Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[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?

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.

So you may have to release a player mid contract because you are now over the points allocation?

What would these points be based on? Who would decide the value?

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Mate having a snack with a mate.
Gildart wouldn’t know hardly anyone here.
Doubt Gildart has any pulling player to make the Bulldogs allow Thompson to join us.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Mate having a snack with a mate.
Gildart wouldn’t know hardly anyone here.
Doubt Gildart has any pulling player to make the Bulldogs allow Thompson to join us.

You never know

 

[diedpretty]

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

I like the idea of a points system - when you say the rorters doubled the tigers points what was your starting point. For example what is the baseline points per player. Do you start at a given points number for all players then add and subtract points according to all your examples above. How many points would each team be allowed - would it just be the baseline times 30 or would that be too low/high.
Another tweak could be that teams that finish in the bottom 4 each year get additional points for the next season.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 again.

 

[Glenji95]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Mate having a snack with a mate.
Gildart wouldn’t know hardly anyone here.
Doubt Gildart has any pulling player to make the Bulldogs allow Thompson to join us.

You never know

I reckon at this stage it could just be mates catching up but if we do manage to sign Hodgson and with Gildart already here it could become a factor for him there are no pommies in the Bulldogs team besides Thompson as far as I know but if we do get Hodgson we all know it pushes more Liddle out rather than Simpkin as he’s the clubs next long term Hooker he’s just not there yet but he’s getting there so we’ll see what happens but I would offer Liddle for Thompson easily as the Dogs do need a Hooker

 

[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.

So you may have to release a player mid contract because you are now over the points allocation?

What would these points be based on? Who would decide the value?

I would imagine the NRL would have a value on that player for a year, (if he ends up more points during the year, because he got his first SOO call up, then it would need to be accounted for the following season, if he stays at the same club, e.g. you wouldn’t expect to have a player sacked, because someone got selected all of a sudden to SOO that season, I think) but if a player moves on (mid season) then you need to find a player available of similar value, but you can’t go over?

Look there are ways to get around everything, but it is obvious you can not trust clubs to play a gentleman’s game, so we need something that is transparent and easily accountable every year.

Some clubs (like us) are severely hampered in signings because the salary cap system is being rorted (TPA’s and cash payments) are very hard to police.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Mate having a snack with a mate.
Gildart wouldn’t know hardly anyone here.
Doubt Gildart has any pulling player to make the Bulldogs allow Thompson to join us.

You never know

Never know what? He’s been here 5 mins. He doesn’t even know the club himself yet, I doubt he’s gonna be “getting in his ear”. 2 Pommies meeting for lunch. Nothing to see here.

 

[TigerWest]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Mate having a snack with a mate.
Gildart wouldn’t know hardly anyone here.
Doubt Gildart has any pulling player to make the Bulldogs allow Thompson to join us.

But it must be worth minimum 10 pages of conjecture surely?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

What’s this obsession people still have with thinking players get into each others ear cos they are mates. A lot of them would live in close proximity to each other and see them enough as it is.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Mate having a snack with a mate.
Gildart wouldn’t know hardly anyone here.
Doubt Gildart has any pulling player to make the Bulldogs allow Thompson to join us.

You never know

I reckon at this stage it could just be mates catching up but if we do manage to sign Hodgson and with Gildart already here it could become a factor for him there are no pommies in the Bulldogs team besides Thompson as far as I know but if we do get Hodgson we all know it pushes more Liddle out rather than Simpkin as he’s the clubs next long term Hooker he’s just not there yet but he’s getting there so we’ll see what happens but I would offer Liddle for Thompson easily as the Dogs do need a Hooker

The club would be ill advised to trade either of our hookers for a busted 32 year old with no knees.

 

[Guest]

Reported in the Telecrap today that Oliver Gildart was spotted in Cronulla for a catch up and a feed of fish and chips with Luke Thompson may be WT'S are still a chance of snaring Thompson??????

Highly unlikely - they're best mates, that's all.

 

[BalmainJnr]

Again, have we signed a salary cap method to impart on the NRL?
How many hit ups, tackles, kicks and passes will Mr Salary Cap make for WT?

 

[diedpretty]

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.

1- It would stop the Rorters for example signing someone on a 500 k contract ( and a paper bag for further 400k) when every one knows that player is worth 900k. If they really want that player, the question is are they willing to spend those points? Once again if you are a stupid club offering stupid deals , you put yourself in a bad position if the player accepts that deal. Not dissimilar to how the salary cap works now , except this is harder to rort.
The player can sign anywhere he wants (eg for culture reasons or likes the coach) however it would them come down to if the club valued that player enough to pay the points.

2-A club would be penalised for the length of the contract they offered or the length of the contract that was signed by the player , whichever was the lesser. Remember , that would only happen if the club withdrew the contract **after** it was accepted by the player. This would stop clubs offering bogus contracts to inflate a price points to screw another club over. Also would promote responsible salary cap management by the clubs.

3-Just like now, clubs offer multiple deals to different players.And just like now, once they spend their cap they withdraw the remaining offers with no penalty before the rest of the offers are excepted. The price points would only be held against a club that signed a player for under market value while the other offer was still valid ( ie not withdrawn. )

Example- Rorters offer Manu 500k ( plus paper bag) . Tigers offer 900k. Manu signs with Rorters it cost the Rorters 90 points because Tigers offer was not withdrawn.

Example 2-- Rorters offer Manu 500k ( plus paper bag) . Tigers offer 900k. Souths offer 750k .
before Manu signs anywhere , Tigers withdraw offer(with no penalty) cause they have signed another centre. Manu signs with Rorters & it now only cost the Rorters 75 points because Souths offer was still current (750k) when Manu signed with the Rorters.

As I said , dont have all the answers & appreciate any feedback suggestions & potential issues.
Putting it simply, it would be a more effective transparent way of policing the salary cap, would encourage clubs to develop their own juniors, (because of the discount in points) , & the paperbags dont matter as you cant spend over your maximum points anyway.

I like the idea of having a price points system however take the case of Papali'i based on Chammas report. Eels want to pay him 425k or 42.5 points tigers offer 600k or 60 points so eels may up offer to 500 k and get him but it costs them 60 points instead of 50. Here is the sticking point under what you originally put forward - the Warriors who developed him get a 50% discount so come in with an offer of 800k that blows both the eels and tiges out of the water but they only have to carry 40 points. I suppose you could get around that by decreasing the development discount for every year the player has been away from his development club. There would need to be a lot of tweaking done but it does seem a fairer system than present.

 

[nrlsurvivor]

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?

Best idea I’ve heard in a while @champ. You should speak with the NRL. Thinking out loud, one possible flaw is if you have a player that doesn’t want to leave a city for personal reasons. Let’s say a Sydney player worth 500k has a disabled family member they provide regular care for and therefore can’t leave town. Lets say Melbourne Storm or Broncos are aware of this, they could potentially offer him 900k knowing he won’t accept and that is would add 400k to the Sydney teams’ cap.

 

[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?

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.

So you may have to release a player mid contract because you are now over the points allocation?

What would these points be based on? Who would decide the value?

I would imagine the NRL would have a value on that player for a year, (if he ends up more points during the year, because he got his first SOO call up, then it would need to be accounted for the following season, if he stays at the same club, e.g. you wouldn’t expect to have a player sacked, because someone got selected all of a sudden to SOO that season, I think) but if a player moves on (mid season) then you need to find a player available of similar value, but you can’t go over?

Look there are ways to get around everything, but it is obvious you can not trust clubs to play a gentleman’s game, so we need something that is transparent and easily accountable every year.

Some clubs (like us) are severely hampered in signings because the salary cap system is being rorted (TPA’s and cash payments) are very hard to police.

There is no fair way to attribute points though.

 

[Geo]

Fish and salad would have been a healthier option..

 

[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.

1- It would stop the Rorters for example signing someone on a 500 k contract ( and a paper bag for further 400k) when every one knows that player is worth 900k. If they really want that player, the question is are they willing to spend those points? Once again if you are a stupid club offering stupid deals , you put yourself in a bad position if the player accepts that deal. Not dissimilar to how the salary cap works now , except this is harder to rort.
The player can sign anywhere he wants (eg for culture reasons or likes the coach) however it would them come down to if the club valued that player enough to pay the points.

2-A club would be penalised for the length of the contract they offered or the length of the contract that was signed by the player , whichever was the lesser. Remember , that would only happen if the club withdrew the contract **after** it was accepted by the player. This would stop clubs offering bogus contracts to inflate a price points to screw another club over. Also would promote responsible salary cap management by the clubs.

3-Just like now, clubs offer multiple deals to different players.And just like now, once they spend their cap they withdraw the remaining offers with no penalty before the rest of the offers are excepted. The price points would only be held against a club that signed a player for under market value while the other offer was still valid ( ie not withdrawn. )

Example- Rorters offer Manu 500k ( plus paper bag) . Tigers offer 900k. Manu signs with Rorters it cost the Rorters 90 points because Tigers offer was not withdrawn.

Example 2-- Rorters offer Manu 500k ( plus paper bag) . Tigers offer 900k. Souths offer 750k .
before Manu signs anywhere , Tigers withdraw offer(with no penalty) cause they have signed another centre. Manu signs with Rorters & it now only cost the Rorters 75 points because Souths offer was still current (750k) when Manu signed with the Rorters.

As I said , dont have all the answers & appreciate any feedback suggestions & potential issues.
Putting it simply, it would be a more effective transparent way of policing the salary cap, would encourage clubs to develop their own juniors, (because of the discount in points) , & the paperbags dont matter as you cant spend over your maximum points anyway.

I like the idea of having a price points system however take the case of Papali'i based on Chammas report. Eels want to pay him 425k or 42.5 points tigers offer 600k or 60 points so eels may up offer to 500 k and get him but it costs them 60 points instead of 50. Here is the sticking point under what you originally put forward - the Warriors who developed him get a 50% discount so come in with an offer of 800k that blows both the eels and tiges out of the water but they only have to carry 40 points. I suppose you could get around that by decreasing the development discount for every year the player has been away from his development club. There would need to be a lot of tweaking done but it does seem a fairer system than present.

Development discount would only apply while at the development club.

 

[hsvjones]

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.

He also passed his medical and assume we would of had a very good look at his knees etc..
People need to remember it not for 4 years and Raiders would be paying some freight this year and he would be on a reduced salary in 2023..
He leadership is what we are really after... Its a YES from me.