Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 4:52 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

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?

This would be exactly the same. Unless now you are saying that leeds are going to start spending huge amounts of money on players they would class as no better than a 'squad' man

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

Because they can only fit a certain amount of players under the cap, when signing one it is likely they would need to release someone else unless they had spare capacity

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?

that would be for a maximum of two points for international players, after 5 years service. I highly doubt a team is going to pay over the market rate to keep a player for 5 years so that they can gain a maximum of two points after the fifth year

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

ok, so why would the pay a shed load of money and 4 points on a player they didnt really want?

No different to a monetary cap then?

except in the monetary system, according to you, Smaller clubs need to pay more to attract poorer quality players, entrenching the bigger clubs position and making it easier for them to attract more better players.

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 7:33 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

This would be exactly the same. Unless now you are saying that leeds are going to start spending huge amounts of money on players they would class as no better than a 'squad' man

As SBR has said, there will be players of different ability within the same points category, would Leeds pay more for these players if they wanted them, of course they would. But with your system, there would be no limit on what they could pay them.

Because they can only fit a certain amount of players under the cap, when signing one it is likely they would need to release someone else unless they had spare capacity

So no change to now then, apart from the fact that the teams that can pay the most can have the pick of the best players within each point range because they can pay them more.

that would be for a maximum of two points for international players, after 5 years service. I highly doubt a team is going to pay over the market rate to keep a player for 5 years so that they can gain a maximum of two points after the fifth year

*edit* scrap that comment, I've re read your post .

ok, so why would the pay a shed load of money and 4 points on a player they didnt really want?

Who said they'd try and sign someone they didn't want? Why wouldn't they want a squad man? It's less of an incentive for the player to want to move.

except in the monetary system, according to you, Smaller clubs need to pay more to attract poorer quality players, entrenching the bigger clubs position and making it easier for them to attract more better players.

And in the points system a smaller club still needs to pay more money to attract players, but has less chance of doing so because the big clubs can now pay them more money. So the smaller clubs either settle for players within each points total that the big clubs don't want, or bankrupt themselves trying to compete with the increased wages. Therefore entrenching the bigger clubs position even more than now and making it easier for them to attract the better players within each points category.

Re: A better way? : Thu May 06, 2010 9:05 pm  

Judging by some of his replies to a number of different posts it seems apparent that he (SmokeyTA) has not read the article. Which is worrying as he was the original poster and so started the thread and posted the link.

As I said in an earlier post I think that he is either too stubborn to admit he may be wrong in his insistence that a points system would be any better than the current monetary cap or he is simply unable to understand that there are various problems with the proposed system that he cannot see but that many others can.

He is the one that started the thread and posed the question "a better way?" yet he seems unable to accept that other people believe it may not be.

Re: A better way? : Fri May 07, 2010 12:49 am  

wiganermike wrote:

Judging by some of his replies to a number of different posts it seems apparent that he (SmokeyTA) has not read the article. Which is worrying as he was the original poster and so started the thread and posted the link.

As I said in an earlier post I think that he is either too stubborn to admit he may be wrong in his insistence that a points system would be any better than the current monetary cap or he is simply unable to understand that there are various problems with the proposed system that he cannot see but that many others can.

He is the one that started the thread and posed the question "a better way?" yet he seems unable to accept that other people believe it may not be.

Perhaps the question should have been "A better way for Leeds?" To which the obvious answer is "Yes". Which I suspect is the reason Smokey is so vociferous in his defence of it, what with Leeds currently in the mix with the "smaller" clubs in the table. It must be quite painful falling from such a high horse.

Still, he is conststent if nothing else.

Re: A better way? : Fri May 07, 2010 8:57 am  

the idea of a points based salary cap has been discussed before this cronulla guy mentioned it

it doesnt stop clubs from overspending so its a dumb idea

the current nrl salary cap works well but perhaps some minor changes as are currently being discussed for cap allowances for juniors and long serving players

clubs are more important than players, as is an even playing field

just because rugby union or AFL want to pay millions for RL players because of a lack of their own talent doesnt mean we have to overpay as well.

they all come back to league anyway

Re: A better way? : Fri May 07, 2010 9:02 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

Cool so they'll join the mass ranks of experienced SL players...

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

That's not the point. The point is that the majority of all the squads in SL will be made up of these players. There's only so many young players and so many star players (particularly as your definition of a star player is someone who has recently played for Australia, New Zealand or England). Within this group of players there will be a massive range of quality and that quality will not be evenly distributed around the clubs, it will be distributed according to willingness to spend on salaries. As this group will make up the core of the squads it will have more of an impact than the handful of star players.

Re: A better way? : Sun May 09, 2010 9:22 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

As SBR has said, there will be players of different ability within the same points category, would Leeds pay more for these players if they wanted them, of course they would. But with your system, there would be no limit on what they could pay them.

So no change to now then, apart from the fact that the teams that can pay the most can have the pick of the best players within each point range because they can pay them more.

yes, they likely would. In fact i have no doubt they would. But it would mean they would have less of the higher points categories and more of the lower. They would be forced to.

This would mean the smaller clubs would find it easier to attract more the higher points categories and more of the lower

Who said they'd try and sign someone they didn't want? Why wouldn't they want a squad man? It's less of an incentive for the player to want to move.

They wouldnt want to pay a shed load of money + 4 points for a squad man. So they simply wouldnt pay them a shed load of money

And in the points system a smaller club still needs to pay more money to attract players, but has less chance of doing so because the big clubs can now pay them more money. So the smaller clubs either settle for players within each points total that the big clubs don't want, or bankrupt themselves trying to compete with the increased wages. Therefore entrenching the bigger clubs position even more than now and making it easier for them to attract the better players within each points category.

they would likely have 2nd choice of players. There isnt a system possible where smaller clubs wouldnt likely have 2nd choice. But what it would mean is that smaller clubs would have the 2nd choice of the highest standard of players. Whereas now there are very few top quality players at the smaller clubs

Re: A better way? : Sun May 09, 2010 9:30 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote: Perhaps the question should have been "A better way for Leeds?" To which the obvious answer is "Yes". Which I suspect is the reason Smokey is so vociferous in his defence of it, what with Leeds currently in the mix with the "smaller" clubs in the table. It must be quite painful falling from such a high horse. Still, he is conststent if nothing else. Ok, Ill admit it, its a system which would only benefit the big clubs, it would mean they could stretch the gap between them and the small clubs. I mean the guy who brought it up is in charge of a club that has loads of money and would be able to spend way more than the cap. They are a huge club and they would be the ones to benefit the most Oh wait......http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -smph.html

Barnacle Bill wrote: Perhaps the question should have been "A better way for Leeds?" To which the obvious answer is "Yes". Which I suspect is the reason Smokey is so vociferous in his defence of it, what with Leeds currently in the mix with the "smaller" clubs in the table. It must be quite painful falling from such a high horse. Still, he is conststent if nothing else. Ok, Ill admit it, its a system which would only benefit the big clubs, it would mean they could stretch the gap between them and the small clubs. I mean the guy who brought it up is in charge of a club that has loads of money and would be able to spend way more than the cap. They are a huge club and they would be the ones to benefit the most Oh wait......http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -smph.html

Re: A better way? : Sun May 09, 2010 9:33 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

the idea of a points based salary cap has been discussed before this cronulla guy mentioned it

it doesnt stop clubs from overspending so its a dumb idea

the current nrl salary cap works well but perhaps some minor changes as are currently being discussed for cap allowances for juniors and long serving players

clubs are more important than players, as is an even playing field

just because rugby union or AFL want to pay millions for RL players because of a lack of their own talent doesnt mean we have to overpay as well.

they all come back to league anyway

92% of fans in Australia have seen through this form of cap and want it changing. CEO's of clubs, the players, Board members, people in charge of smaller clubs like cronulla and rich clubs like the roosters. All looking for change

Re: A better way? : Sun May 09, 2010 9:35 pm  

SBR wrote:

Cool so they'll join the mass ranks of experienced SL players...

That's not the point. The point is that the majority of all the squads in SL will be made up of these players. There's only so many young players and so many star players (particularly as your definition of a star player is someone who has recently played for Australia, New Zealand or England). Within this group of players there will be a massive range of quality and that quality will not be evenly distributed around the clubs, it will be distributed according to willingness to spend on salaries. As this group will make up the core of the squads it will have more of an impact than the handful of star players.

No the point is that each club will have a similar make up. 6-10 stars, 6-10 experienced players, about 10 developed players. If you invest in your youngsters and pick up your handful of stars, then the difference will come through the between 6-10 middle players, where there would be a smaller range of quality. Certainly smaller than there is now and for the foreseeable future