Re: A better way? : Tue May 04, 2010 11:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But they cant do this anyway. If a club cant offer a player attractive enough wages because they simply cant afford them then they simply cant afford them, whatever cap system we use. And union isnt going to become suddenly more attractive to Player A at club A because Player B at Club B is paid more than him. Paying Danny Mcguire more doesnt make union more attractive to Stefan Ratchford, in fact it becomes less attractive as IF SALFORD WISH they can offer Ratchford terms to compete with union something that they cannot do now.

Im still curious as to how your logic has reached this point, i simply dont understand where you are coming from. I cant see how raising wages for some players will mean other players choose to go to union who wont now be offering more than they were previously because of this

I don't know where you got the idea about McGuire getting a pay rise at Leeds causing Ratchford to leave Salford. What I was saying that if Leeds are forced to release player A due to points quota and Salford (or any other club with enough points to spare) cannot afford to pay the wage that player A wants (he is unlikely to accept a pay cut to go to a weaker club) then player A is more likely to go to RU to get his current wage level. Nothing like what you seem to think I meant.

To clarify a point I don't think you understand SALFORD CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FULL CAP SO DO NOT PAY FULL CAP. Changing the system from a squad salary cap to a points quota WILL NOT GIVE THEM THE MONEY THEY DO NOT POSSESS they will still not be able to pay for players they cannot afford now. THEY CANNOT AFFORD THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, NOT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CAP SPACE. That is the reason they have been trying to move to a new stadium since well before they were warned about it affecting their licence. They hope that it will increase revenue to give them enough income to be able to have the same spending power as Leeds, Wigan et al so that they then will be able to afford the better players. Salford are not alone in this situation.

Implementing a points quota system in place of the Salary Cap with comparative club finances as they are now would have very little, if any effect on the balance of power and the spread of the best players. With a much smaller budget the likes of Salford (apologies to any City Reds fans, I do not mean to single out your club in particular) cannot afford to assemble a squad with the same strength as Leeds, Wigan, Saints. They may have the available points but it doesn't mean that they can use them any more than they can spend the full cap.

Re: A better way? : Tue May 04, 2010 11:54 pm  

wiganermike wrote:

I don't know where you got the idea about McGuire getting a pay rise at Leeds causing Ratchford to leave Salford. What I was saying that if Leeds are forced to release player A due to points quota and Salford (or any other club with enough points to spare) cannot afford to pay the wage that player A wants (he is unlikely to accept a pay cut to go to a weaker club) then player A is more likely to go to RU to get his current wage level. Nothing like what you seem to think I meant.

To clarify a point I don't think you understand SALFORD CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FULL CAP SO DO NOT PAY FULL CAP. Changing the system from a squad salary cap to a points quota WILL NOT GIVE THEM THE MONEY THEY DO NOT POSSESS they will still not be able to pay for players they cannot afford now. THEY CANNOT AFFORD THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, NOT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CAP SPACE. That is the reason they have been trying to move to a new stadium since well before they were warned about it affecting their licence. They hope that it will increase revenue to give them enough income to be able to have the same spending power as Leeds, Wigan et al so that they then will be able to afford the better players. Salford are not alone in this situation.

Implementing a points quota system in place of the Salary Cap with comparative club finances as they are now would have very little, if any effect on the balance of power and the spread of the best players. With a much smaller budget the likes of Salford (apologies to any City Reds fans, I do not mean to single out your club in particular) cannot afford to assemble a squad with the same strength as Leeds, Wigan, Saints. They may have the available points but it doesn't mean that they can use them any more than they can spend the full cap.

Your argument in most parts contradicts itself and in others is completely irrelevant, ill try and address them in bullet points so hopefully you can either follow the logic through or show where your logic deviates

If Salford cannot afford to pay player A then they cannot afford to pay player A. It doesnt matter what cap we use, even if we have a cap that they can afford to spend the full amount, unless they can make an offer acceptable to the player he wont play for them.

We are more likely to lose players to union with a monetary cap because we are limited massively in what we can offer a player. Under a points system a club could choose, if they wished, to offer a contract to a player which would compete or even beat an offer from union. This means we would be less likely to lose a player to union

A points system would spread the talent between the clubs more, as clubs wouldnt be able to have as many players of a certain quality on their books at anyone time, this would mean some players of quality would need to go to lesser clubs as they wouldnt have an opportunity at top clubs. This would keep the wages down as well as clubs are very limited in what clubs they can sign for.

You're argument against the above is that players are simply going to refuse to play for a lower team, this however contradicts your argument of needing a cap all clubs can spend. it also contradicts what we are seeing right now. Clubs are able to pay players now and the same players would still play for the same wages, with the points system meaning more quality players would be available affecting the price each player can demand.

yes we do need to grow game wide revenues but this is completely irrelevant to how we cap clubs hoarding players. Especially as we know players will accept less (meaning lower clubs need to pay more) to play for bigger clubs

Re: A better way? : Wed May 05, 2010 9:34 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Im still curious as to how your logic has reached this point, i simply dont understand where you are coming from. I cant see how raising wages for some players will mean other players choose to go to union who wont now be offering more than they were previously because of this

It's pretty simple really, I don't understand why you can't see what he's getting at.

If we use someone like Robinson when he was at Wigan, or Calderwood when at Leeds. Neither club thought they were worth retaining for the money they were wanting, so both left the clubs they were at and joined 'lesser' clubs, probably on slightly less money than they were on previously, but because the cap restricted their wage at their original club it wasn't a massive drop.

Without a monetary cap, both players wages could have been much higher at the point their clubs decided they didn't want them. Huddersfield still couldn't have paid much more than they did in the original example, so the drop in wages is now a big one. Do those players still sign for Huddersfield or Hull if the wage drop is massive or do they look elsewhere? Do Huddersfield break the bank attempting to keep up with the wage inflation that would happen (for any doubt whether clubs would pay average players more money if it were available, where did all the SL money go? Certainly not into club development)?

The monetary cap means that wage differences are never that big, even if smaller clubs can't pay as much as bigger clubs, a points system with no monetary cap would destroy that.

Re: A better way? : Wed May 05, 2010 8:36 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

It's pretty simple really, I don't understand why you can't see what he's getting at.

If we use someone like Robinson when he was at Wigan, or Calderwood when at Leeds. Neither club thought they were worth retaining for the money they were wanting, so both left the clubs they were at and joined 'lesser' clubs, probably on slightly less money than they were on previously, but because the cap restricted their wage at their original club it wasn't a massive drop.

Without a monetary cap, both players wages could have been much higher at the point their clubs decided they didn't want them. Huddersfield still couldn't have paid much more than they did in the original example, so the drop in wages is now a big one. Do those players still sign for Huddersfield or Hull if the wage drop is massive or do they look elsewhere? Do Huddersfield break the bank attempting to keep up with the wage inflation that would happen (for any doubt whether clubs would pay average players more money if it were available, where did all the SL money go? Certainly not into club development)?

The monetary cap means that wage differences are never that big, even if smaller clubs can't pay as much as bigger clubs, a points system with no monetary cap would destroy that.

this would only be the case if you were naive enough to believe clubs would suddenly start wasting money for no apparent reason.

the reason why clubs spend huge amounts of money previously is that they were in competition with each other for everyone of these player, and they believed paying more would attract a better quality squad. This simply cannot be the case under a points system.

Wages arent going to escalate massively, and where they do, it will only be for the very best, which is no bad thing.

In the case of Calderwood, Leeds did offer him a contract, Wigan offered more, im not sure why you think Leeds not being able to offer Calderwood a contract would mean the clubs in competition for him would need to pay more for him. Neither am i sure why you think a union contract of say £100k becomes more attractive than a league contract of £120k because the player previously had a league contract of £300k.

This system would have no influence on how attractive a player is to union and how much they are willing to offer him. If they are willing to offer him a contract higher than a league club is willing to pay then he will likely go to union, but having a points system doesnt suddenly mean a union club will offer more, unless of course you are thinking that a player will take a pay cut (from league to union) in a strange nose-cutting, face-spitting action because Quins arent able to offer him as much as Leeds. If not, then the clubs are in a position of more strength able to negotiate harder with players

It doesnt matter if the wage disparity is huge, a club cant be more successful simply by paying more money to players

Re: A better way? : Wed May 05, 2010 9:04 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

this would only be the case if you were naive enough to believe clubs would suddenly start wasting money for no apparent reason.

the reason why clubs spend huge amounts of money previously is that they were in competition with each other for everyone of these player, and they believed paying more would attract a better quality squad. This simply cannot be the case under a points system.

Wages arent going to escalate massively, and where they do, it will only be for the very best, which is no bad thing.

In the case of Calderwood, Leeds did offer him a contract, Wigan offered more, im not sure why you think Leeds not being able to offer Calderwood a contract would mean the clubs in competition for him would need to pay more for him. Neither am i sure why you think a union contract of say £100k becomes more attractive than a league contract of £120k because the player previously had a league contract of £300k.

This system would have no influence on how attractive a player is to union and how much they are willing to offer him. If they are willing to offer him a contract higher than a league club is willing to pay then he will likely go to union, but having a points system doesnt suddenly mean a union club will offer more, unless of course you are thinking that a player will take a pay cut (from league to union) in a strange nose-cutting, face-spitting action because Quins arent able to offer him as much as Leeds. If not, then the clubs are in a position of more strength able to negotiate harder with players

It doesnt matter if the wage disparity is huge, a club cant be more successful simply by paying more money to players

And you call him naive

Re: A better way? : Wed May 05, 2010 9:16 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

And you call him naive

it cant, if we set the points total at the right level then it is impossible to build a better squad simply by paying more money to players.

you cannot put out a 17 man squad of internationals as it would take you over the total when building your squad of 25. as a very maximum (ignoring dispensations for developed international players) you could only attract 12 international players (72 points) and 12 the other 13 players in the squad would then need to be players you had developed with less than three years first team experience (24 points) and one player with more than 3 years experience, i doubt any team would be trembling at the prospect of at least 3 rookies in the squad every single week

Re: A better way? : Wed May 05, 2010 9:23 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

this would only be the case if you were naive enough to believe clubs would suddenly start wasting money for no apparent reason.

Yes, because history has told us they never, ever do.

the reason why clubs spend huge amounts of money previously is that they were in competition with each other for everyone of these player, and they believed paying more would attract a better quality squad. This simply cannot be the case under a points system.

So you think that under a points system clubs aren't in competition with each other for players and paying more than other clubs wouldn't attract a better squad?

Wages arent going to escalate massively, and where they do, it will only be for the very best, which is no bad thing.

If one club increases wages, they all have to. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

In the case of Calderwood, Leeds did offer him a contract, Wigan offered more, im not sure why you think Leeds not being able to offer Calderwood a contract would mean the clubs in competition for him would need to pay more for him. Neither am i sure why you think a union contract of say £100k becomes more attractive than a league contract of £120k because the player previously had a league contract of £300k.

I'm not sure where I posted those figures. Can you point it out to me? Otherwise, you might be better off reading what I have actually written.

This system would have no influence on how attractive a player is to union and how much they are willing to offer him. If they are willing to offer him a contract higher than a league club is willing to pay then he will likely go to union, but having a points system doesnt suddenly mean a union club will offer more, unless of course you are thinking that a player will take a pay cut (from league to union) in a strange nose-cutting, face-spitting action because Quins arent able to offer him as much as Leeds. If not, then the clubs are in a position of more strength able to negotiate harder with players

This system is a waste of time and would improve nothing.

It doesnt matter if the wage disparity is huge, a club cant be more successful simply by paying more money to players

Is that why Melbourne Storm failed to win so many trophies? And Wigan in their heyday? Oh, they did win more than other clubs by paying players more. More money means attracting better players, to even attempt to deny that isn't naive, it's laughable.

Re: A better way? : Wed May 05, 2010 9:32 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Yes, because history has told us they never, ever do.

history has told us that when clubs need to spend more than they have to create a competitive squad they will, and when they dont they dont. Under a points system they dont

So you think that under a points system clubs aren't in competition with each other for players and paying more than other clubs wouldn't attract a better squad?

Less than they are now

If one club increases wages, they all have to. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

no they dont. Warrington can pay Matt King £80m a season if they want, it doesnt mean leeds need to pay Keith Senior any more.

I'm not sure where I posted those figures. Can you point it out to me? Otherwise, you might be better off reading what I have actually written.

it was an example of your premise, the figures were picked out of the air. Use any figures you like the premise is the same, Use pounds, shillings, drachma, euros, dollars, whatever you please, the premise stays the same

This system is a waste of time and would improve nothing.

so no worse than the current cap then

Is that why Melbourne Storm failed to win so many trophies? And Wigan in their heyday? Oh, they did win more than other clubs by paying players more. More money means attracting better players, to even attempt to deny that isn't naive, it's laughable.

Did you miss the whole part where we limit the amount and quality of players a club can sign?

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 11:26 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

history has told us that when clubs need to spend more than they have to create a competitive squad they will, and when they dont they dont. Under a points system they dont

But they do, players demand more when more is available, and unless a club pays it, the players don't sign. You appear to be attempting to portray RL as a closed shop in respect of a points system, but not in an monetary cap system.

no they dont. Warrington can pay Matt King £80m a season if they want, it doesnt mean leeds need to pay Keith Senior any more.
it was an example of your premise, the figures were picked out of the air. Use any figures you like the premise is the same, Use pounds, shillings, drachma, euros, dollars, whatever you please, the premise stays the same

Why are you wittering on about currency when that has nothing to do with the point made?

so no worse than the current cap then

And no better, so what's the point?

Did you miss the whole part where we limit the amount and quality of players a club can sign?

The only definitive way of assessing quality is international caps, everything else is opinion. You can't have a cap based on opinion.

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 11:46 am  

SmokeyTA

You are either too stubborn to admit you may be wrong as you were the OP or you are simply unable to understand that other people are able to see and identify reasons why this system would not be any better at levelling the spread of quality through the clubs. Myself and Billinge Lump have given examples and the reasons why removing the cash ceiling in favour of a points quota would not help the smaller clubs to recruit those players the top clubs couldn't keep and you have added your own arbitrary figures to try to dispute them. You also seem to be under a delusion that with no upper limit to restrict their spending that clubs (and rival codes) will start to pay players less than they do now. Your arbitrary figures are put in to follow that fanciful idea.

Leaving aside monetary reasons there is another salient reason why this system would be no better at creating parity. The stated points values give no differentiation between quality of representative honours (so somebody representing Australia in a World Cup Final costs no more points than somebody who represents Serbia in a test match with Netherlands). Under that system Eamonn O' Carroll and Karl Fitzpatrick (academy produced, number of years service, represented Ireland) incur the same points cost for Wigan and Salford as James Graham for Saints and more incredibly the same points as Billy Slater, Greg Inglis and Cameron Smith cost Melbourne. No disrespect to Eamonn or Karl but whilst good for their clubs they are not in the same league as those others. Equal points does not mean equal standard of player. Six players that have represented Serbia or Jamaica within Wakefield's squad (for example) cost the same points as Wigan having the entire World Cup winning pack in their squad.

I am not saying that the SC is a lot better at keeping the competition closer, it isn't, but this system as can be demonstrated in two important ways is no better at doing it either.

Also there is no benchmark for what equates to having "NRL experience" or in our case SL experience. Does Jonny Walker with his one sub appearance for Wigan count as SL experienced, if he does not then how many appearances can Walker make before he takes up two precious quota points. Does Liam Farrell count with 4 appearances? Or Jamie Foster with 3 appearances?

What happens if as at clubs like Quins, Saints and Leeds you suffer a large amount of injuries at once and are forced to play young players. In such a situation a player may have to be used once at aged 17 but never appear again for the club until he is 20 (when he is deemed ready rather than necessity forcing his selection). Does that player count as SL experienced and take up two quota points for the intervening 3 years?