Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[tonza]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .

The way I see it is Simpkin body is 2 years off fulltime first grade. He got rag dolled this season and he will only get bigger and stronger with more experience. Nobody needs to go yet.

 

[Camel2281]

Fish and salad would have been a healthier option..

Fish and chips is health food in the North of England

 

[Tiger5150]

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.


It is used in Sydney Rugby Union and also in the VFL

Links please I'd like to read about it

Any chance of dragging the Salary Cap discussion to the salary cap thread?

https://weststigersforum.com/topic/32624/the-salary-cap?_=1636855140824

 

[BAGNF05]

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.

* Potential restraint of trade due to the inevitable tying of salary to centrally-assigned arbitrary points capping
* penalising of rep players by making them more "costly" in points cap
* removes ability for players to take a pay cut and to remain at a club
* is nothing more than fantasy football and will generate as much controversy for the arbitrary central assignment of points, and inevitable claims of bias and rorting
* enables the rich clubs to still buy the best players in a particular points bracket
* would not and could not account for mid-contract variables, e.g. How do you plan points for a debutant on a 3 year deal, who may become very points expensive if he becomes a young star and you suddenly don't have points space
* clubs would not be able to plan long-term points assignments due to unpredictable nature of an average player career
* rich clubs would stock up on all the best junior talent because the cap cost would be very low
* how do you account for drops in form where a well-credentialled played is no longer playing well or gets a key injury?

Absolutely riddled with issues as a potential system.

I agree it’s not perfect. Either is watching the Storm or Roosters in the grand final most years.

On topic, punt Garner.

 

[Camel2281]

I can only wish the roosters are enticing players with money, but I think the uncomfortable truth is that players are going there to be successful and sacrificing the money. If this generation values winning over money, our hill gets even steeper to climb, Ryan Matterson was on $180K at the chooks . When his upgrade request got leaked, whilst a WT. Many started to entertain the notion of the roosters actually being under the cap.

The Roosters are NEVER under the salary cap.This cr3p about players playing for unders "just to be at the Roosters" is a Politus inspired myth .Just because payments dont show up on the books, dont think for a second players are not receiving delayed payments for years after they retire from third parties, supposedly at arms length from the club.

1000 % Agree this happens..
Even retired players joke about it yet we get done for offering Farah a job AFTER footy when he was also leaving our club..
I've said it for years now but all payment should be paid through NRL and TPA need to be scrapped or heavily looked at by NRL.. Unfortunately the NRL have no balls to fix it

That doesn’t stop lumps of cash handed out

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.All clubs can pay players what they want , however they can only spend the same amount of points. If a player is a local junior, you get a discount . If a players is a local junior and stays with the club 10 years , you get a discount. If you buy a player that was a junior at another club, you never can get these discounts, not matter how long he stays. The beauty of this system is it would stop the likes of the Rorters waiting for all the other clubs(like the Tigers ) spending the time developing these kids just to have them "stolen " with more money. For one thing , clubs like the Rorters would be forced to develop their own juniors and Uncle Nicks paper bags would be rendered redundant in buying any more premierships.


That is so obvious and makes perfect sense, but it would mean teams like the Roosters and Broncos would no longer hold an advantage, so there’s no chance of it happening.

Absolutely wrong. Rich clubs would stockpile junior talent with minimal concern of points cost, then just discard the droves of kids who dont work out.

That exact thing happened when the minimum home grown player numbers in the squad for the Premier league. Chelsea just stockpiled all the best junior players and heaps of them never reached their potential. I think one season Chelsea had 37 players out on loan

 

[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

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

Either way the club sees Simpkin as its next long term Hooker even if they don’t get Hodgson and keep Liddle until his contract is up I doubt he’ll be kept unless he’s happy with just being depth either way Liddle will be gone eventually the question is just when

 

[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

Either way the club sees Simpkin as its next long term Hooker even if they don’t get Hodgson and keep Liddle until his contract is up I doubt he’ll be kept unless he’s happy with just being depth either way Liddle will be gone eventually the question is just when

Liddle and Simpkin were on par in 2021. Anything can happen in 2 years.

 

[Camel2281]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .


It will be one of the 2. We won't need 3 hookers. Liddle to be moved on.
Simpkin only still young, Hodgson will be a great mentor.

It depends really. I think it would be smart keeping all three. Simpkin has missed so much footy due to COVID cancellation of NSW Cup. I think the smart play is keep all three, tell Simpkin that he's the long term man but we want him spending the year playing 80mins every week in NSW Cup then keep Liddle around the first grade team either on the interchange bench or 18th man. If Hodgson was to get injured, Liddle can't play 80 so it's essential to have Simpkin in the 17

 

[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

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

Either way the club sees Simpkin as its next long term Hooker even if they don’t get Hodgson and keep Liddle until his contract is up I doubt he’ll be kept unless he’s happy with just being depth either way Liddle will be gone eventually the question is just when

Liddle and Simpkin were on par in 2021. Anything can happen in 2 years.

True but if Simpkin hasn’t left the club or suffered a career ending injury in that time Liddle is gonna be the one on the outer why did they resign Simpkin first when he couldn’t negotiate with rival teams yet Liddle could? Yes Liddle stayed and was resigned but if the club really backed Liddle 100% they would have resigned him first when he could have been talking with other teams

 

[crazycat]

Get rid of McLuciano too. Clearly they both think they’re way better than they actually are and are a culture killer too. Whingers!

Since when has Luciano done anything?

He’s suffering from the same issues Nathan Cleary is. Being related to a scumbag.

Sure. Joey is a straight dumbass but I dunno if he belongs in the May category. Maybe the Hopoate division as a lightweight.

Nathan Cleary is related to May?

Through marriage .....

Whats with this forum?

A good football team is like a Brotherhood. Penrith are doing so well because they all trained together and are friends.

Yes Tyrone May did the wrong thing. See how the penrith team rallies around him (wrongly).

We need that strong team Culture.
Manly did it with Fortress Manly.
Melbourne do it and it helps players stick.
Easts have it*.

While with us, we dont have it. Our players are getting overs. Players want to play with friends. We miss that team spirit and grit.

*why easts have it? NO IDEA. They truly are a pick n flick mob.

 

[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

Either way the club sees Simpkin as its next long term Hooker even if they don’t get Hodgson and keep Liddle until his contract is up I doubt he’ll be kept unless he’s happy with just being depth either way Liddle will be gone eventually the question is just when

Liddle and Simpkin were on par in 2021. Anything can happen in 2 years.

True but if Simpkin hasn’t left the club or suffered a career ending injury in that time Liddle is gonna be the one on the outer why did they resign Simpkin first when he couldn’t negotiate with rival teams yet Liddle could? Yes Liddle stayed and was resigned but if the club really backed Liddle 100% they would have resigned him first when he could have been talking with other teams

You’re arguing semantics. As it stands, they are on par with each other.

 

[bradexl]

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

Either way the club sees Simpkin as its next long term Hooker even if they don’t get Hodgson and keep Liddle until his contract is up I doubt he’ll be kept unless he’s happy with just being depth either way Liddle will be gone eventually the question is just when

Liddle and Simpkin were on par in 2021. Anything can happen in 2 years.

No they weren't. Liddle was streets ahead of Simpkin.

 

[Newtown]

Get rid of McLuciano too. Clearly they both think they’re way better than they actually are and are a culture killer too. Whingers!

Since when has Luciano done anything?

He’s suffering from the same issues Nathan Cleary is. Being related to a scumbag.

Sure. Joey is a straight dumbass but I dunno if he belongs in the May category. Maybe the Hopoate division as a lightweight.

Nathan Cleary is related to May?

Through marriage .....

Whats with this forum?

A good football team is like a Brotherhood. Penrith are doing so well because they all trained together and are friends.

Yes Tyrone May did the wrong thing. See how the penrith team rallies around him (wrongly).

We need that strong team Culture.
Manly did it with Fortress Manly.
Melbourne do it and it helps players stick.
Easts have it*.

While with us, we dont have it. Our players are getting overs. Players want to play with friends. We miss that team spirit and grit.

*why easts have it? NO IDEA. They truly are a pick n flick mob.

Because they are all mates with brown paper bags.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

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.

Do people really think the Roosters are using cash payments outside the cap? I know everyone likes to joke about Politis’ golf game but they would have be seriously incompetent to be so foolish. I’ve always assumed their ability to have such a stacked roster is a combination of :
1) making full use of TPA’s
2) players in the last 10 roster spots playing for unders because they are looking to come through a good system which allows the club to skew its cap to the top 20 who are all representative standard.

Rather than trying to assign points to players I think it would be pretty easy to fix the cap:
1) all contracts public
2) hard cap on TPAs (eg $2m)
3) better system of cap relief for juniors/veterans

 

[240z]

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.

Hey Diedpretty - Yes the last point was part of my submission the bottom 4 had more points. I started off with 2 points as a basis for each player, then 5 points for SOO and 10 points for International, 4 points for tier 2 internationals, 3 points for 1st grade imports, 1 point reduction for every year a player has been with the team. Min points is 2 points. A SOO and International would only get the the highest points (SOO would be 0 if they played for Australia). Marquee would only attract 1/2 the allotted points. Father Son or sibling scenarios would the same as a base player 2 points.

Off the top of my head I think that is how is did it

BTW Died Pretty was one of my all time fave bands

 

[240z]

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.


It is used in Sydney Rugby Union and also in the VFL

Links please I'd like to read about it

VFL from 2020

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjT85_A8Zb0AhUNzTgGHWjSBq0QFnoECAQQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfnl.com.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F02%2F2021_AFL_Victoria_Player_Points_System_Policy-2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0wVhXQLDBa7Hzn8T4r1dyF

SRU - from 2015
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNx7LS8Zb0AhW9yjgGHVofAjcQFnoECAYQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenandgoldrugby.com%2Fcommunity%2Fthreads%2Fthe-player-points-system.15788%2F&usg=AOvVaw1XC0owFqyOEXxjERNbkD0D

 

[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.


Do people really think the Roosters are using cash payments outside the cap? I know everyone likes to joke about Politis’ golf game but they would have be seriously incompetent to be so foolish. I’ve always assumed their ability to have such a stacked roster is a combination of :
1) making full use of TPA’s
2) players in the last 10 roster spots playing for unders because they are looking to come through a good system which allows the club to skew its cap to the top 20 who are all representative standard.

Rather than trying to assign points to players I think it would be pretty easy to fix the cap:
1) all contracts public
2) hard cap on TPAs (eg $2m)
3) better system of cap relief for juniors/veterans

Who knows, but cash is untraceable, I don’t believe players really sign up for less, especially if they are representative standard, just because they like the club or the coach, there careers are short enough and injuries could make it shorter?

 

[Telltails]

Don't believe for a minute that players play for less a better clubs.

 

[ConePuncher]

Have you never worked at a job you liked for less money?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Don't believe for a minute that players play for less a better clubs.

We’re proof that they do