Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 2:15 pm  

SBR wrote:

I'm looking at it from the point of view that players will be grouped into categories, 6 point players, 5 point players etc. (with a little bit of fudging to make it easier for the top clubs to keep the top players). Clubs will be limited as to how many players they can sign from each group. Clubs who spend the most on salaries will get the best players from each group. Leading to the exact problems of clubs trying to buy success that the salary cap addresses (those problems primarily being clubs spending beyond their means and a lack of competitive fixtures).

well that is where you are going wrong.

Players would be worth the same amount of points to any club trying to buy them, the only club who would benefit from any exemption or dispensation are the club players are currently at.

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 2:45 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

well that is where you are going wrong.

Players would be worth the same amount of points to any club trying to buy them, the only club who would benefit from any exemption or dispensation are the club players are currently at.

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point still stands that the best players in each group will go to the club paying the highest wages. Short term wage inflation, long term clubs taking financial gambles as the only way to try to be successful.

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 2:56 pm  

SBR wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point still stands that the best players in each group will go to the club paying the highest wages. Short term wage inflation, long term clubs taking financial gambles as the only way to try to be successful.

again, clubs would be limited in what players they could bring in, so they couldnt bring in more than one or two of each group in each position, this would spread the talent around rather than concentrate it.

I would also argue there isnt a huge difference in quality between the players in each group, i doubt clubs are going to complain because there club only got Gareth Ellis when they could have got Sam Burgess for a bit more money, or they only got JJB rather than Gilmour

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 3:08 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: again, clubs would be limited in what players they could bring in, so they couldnt bring in more than one or two of each group in each position, this would spread the talent around rather than concentrate it. It wouldn't spread the talent around because this would apply to all clubs and they could only bring in players whose quality matches their spending ability. SmokeyTA wrote: I would also argue there isnt a huge difference in quality between the players in each group, i doubt clubs are going to complain because there club only got Gareth Ellis when they could have got Sam Burgess for a bit more money, or they only got JJB rather than Gilmour Or if they only got James Roby rather than Bob Beswick?

SmokeyTA wrote: again, clubs would be limited in what players they could bring in, so they couldnt bring in more than one or two of each group in each position, this would spread the talent around rather than concentrate it. It wouldn't spread the talent around because this would apply to all clubs and they could only bring in players whose quality matches their spending ability. SmokeyTA wrote: I would also argue there isnt a huge difference in quality between the players in each group, i doubt clubs are going to complain because there club only got Gareth Ellis when they could have got Sam Burgess for a bit more money, or they only got JJB rather than Gilmour Or if they only got James Roby rather than Bob Beswick?

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 3:15 pm  

SBR wrote: It wouldn't spread the talent around because this would apply to all clubs and they could only bring in players whose quality matches their spending ability. yes, it would apply to all clubs, so the bigger clubs wouldnt be able to hold onto the better players, It would become for instance a poor use of the points cap for leeds to be spending 12 points on 3 wingers, meaning one of Donald, Hall, or Smith would need to leave and join a different club, leaving the way open for a smaller club to pick one of them up Or if they only got James Roby rather than Bob Beswick? there is no cap, ever, anywhere that would legislate for poor recruitment

SBR wrote: It wouldn't spread the talent around because this would apply to all clubs and they could only bring in players whose quality matches their spending ability. yes, it would apply to all clubs, so the bigger clubs wouldnt be able to hold onto the better players, It would become for instance a poor use of the points cap for leeds to be spending 12 points on 3 wingers, meaning one of Donald, Hall, or Smith would need to leave and join a different club, leaving the way open for a smaller club to pick one of them up Or if they only got James Roby rather than Bob Beswick? there is no cap, ever, anywhere that would legislate for poor recruitment

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 3:32 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i dont doubt this is the case, and would happily see fewer average overseas players come over

A side effect of this though would be it becoming virtually impossible to bring a top quality import over, we wouldnt see Barrett, Johnson, Lauitiiti, Eastwood, Buderus, Gidley, etc come over because they would simply be too expensive and i think our league would be poorer for it

Ah but Smokey, in your example you highlighted your point based on a 50% increase when I said 10. If Wire are paying King 150k he would become 165k on the cap, not that much of a biggie. Where the system would really reward clubs would be coupled with my homegrown ruling of a further ten percent discount totalling 20%.

Where this really works is that overseas players arent directly too expensive and young players arent forced to stay at one club due to being expensive on someone elses cap but when coupling the two together - Homegrown V Overseas, the club is encouraged to take the homegrown player.
That and we can increase payments to players without really increasing the true monetary cap.

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 3:33 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

there is no cap, ever, anywhere that would legislate for poor recruitment

Your system values them as equals. Which is insane. Playing for any international team other than Australia, New Zealand or England would have serious repercussions for a player's chances of a SL contract.
What about the vast majority of Super League players who would be classed as 'experienced' but without representative honours? The players who make up the majority of SL teams. What's going to spread their talent around the league?

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 3:43 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

WTF, no you have clubs who have less money offering more money? when did Salford last out bid Leeds or Saints for a star player?

Who's talking about star players? What could be a star player for Salford, may well just be a squad man for Leeds. Therefore currently it is quite feasible that Salford may offer more money than Leeds to a player due to the total cap on both clubs spending. Under the points system they would both cost the same amount of points but Leeds could pay that player a damn sight more. How's that spreading the talent around the clubs?

only for a very limited amount of players, and in a way that would mean there would need to be some 'give' elsewhere in the squad

A player would cost the same points for either team in the example above, where would there need to be give for Leeds?

their points cost wouldnt decrease firstly.

If you understood how the cap in that article works you'd know that the points a player is worth decreases after a certain length of time at a club. So a squad player could sit there getting more money with the club losing points off his total after a length of time. Have you read the article?

Secondly why would a big club spend shed loads or money and 4 points on a player who couldnt get a game for them

Who's talking about not getting a game? Squad players get all sorts of game time but aren't classed as essential players?

when it would mean should a better experienced non-international become available they have taken themselves out of the running?

No different to a monetary cap then?

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 4:43 pm  

Dico wrote:

Ah but Smokey, in your example you highlighted your point based on a 50% increase when I said 10. If Wire are paying King 150k he would become 165k on the cap, not that much of a biggie. Where the system would really reward clubs would be coupled with my homegrown ruling of a further ten percent discount totalling 20%.

Where this really works is that overseas players arent directly too expensive and young players arent forced to stay at one club due to being expensive on someone elses cap but when coupling the two together - Homegrown V Overseas, the club is encouraged to take the homegrown player.
That and we can increase payments to players without really increasing the true monetary cap.

i was directly addressing a 50% increase.

I would agree with taxing overseas players and exempting youngster, i would be very very much in favour of it

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 4:46 pm  

SBR wrote:

Your system values them as equals. Which is insane. Playing for any international team other than Australia, New Zealand or England would have serious repercussions for a player's chances of a SL contract.

that has already been addressed in that there would need to be a separate system for those outside the tier one nations.

What about the vast majority of Super League players who would be classed as 'experienced' but without representative honours? The players who make up the majority of SL teams. What's going to spread their talent around the league?

they would naturally need to move, having more youngsters and fewer experienced SL players would allow more 'star' players. It would be up to each club to find a balance they were comfortable with