|
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Barnacle Bill"That's true, but these teams might still be disadvantaged. Say Catalans bring a player through to represent France at an early age and then for one reason or another the player is no longer needed (or wanted), perhaps a new coach and new systems or loss of form etc. Would that player be more difficult for Catalans to move on because he would be more expensive to other clubs? Might they be stuck with him?'"
For the length of his contract probably, which isnt really any different to now.
In fact if they were able to negotiate a settlement with him it would actually put them in a better position, for instance, Player A has 2 years to run on his contract, they could offer to pay him 18 months of his contract off to leave, this is something they couldnt do in an SC world as it would count massively against one years cap
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wiganermike"My point was that changing from a cash salary cap to a points quota system would not alleviate the problems that we have with differences in squad standards due to vast differences in income for different clubs. The cash ceiling as it currently stands fixes the average salary at £60k - £65K. Removing the cash ceiling would allow previously restricted salaries to climb above that. You only have to look at RL pre SC to see that clubs with larger turnovers will offer players more cash to price out competitors and that the smaller clubs will overspend to get players to keep up and will ultimately fail and go to the wall. Most of the SL clubs cannot pay full cap.
'"
it doesnt need to. If Warrington want to go out and pay £1m a season to all 25 players on their books it doesnt matter, they will still have to create a squad of 25 players that dont break the points ceilling and would simply be massively overpaying some very average players, this wont make a club spending a reasonable amount any less competitive.
the issue isnt how much they are paying but the make up of their squad. The can only fit 6-10 top quality players under the ceiling cap, and the more of the 'top' players they have the lower the quality of the other players they would need to make up their squad, whether they pay them a million or a tenner they would still need to fall under the points value
Quote
You are fooling yourself if you think that with only so many points to use and no rule to restrict squad salary that bigger clubs will say to their players "we can keep you here but your wage is limited to a certain amount" due to the points quota and that players will meekly accept. The principal deciding factor in player wages is what the player's agent can get any club in either code (or even AFL) to pay him. Agents will play off one club against another as they do in sports with no SC like soccer and as they still do in RL with the SC. The pay cut hits the agent as well as the player so he will steer his client into RU with the guarantee of the same salary if needing to. '" no, im not. Im saying that it doesnt matter. If a club wants to keep a player, the wage demands are secondary to their points value. A club can negotiate with a player their wage however they like but if they cant fit them under the points cap they cant offer them anything. And they cant play one team off against another because only a few teams in each case would be able to offer each player a contract. All clubs would be forced to have a similar make up of squad, 6-10 top quality players (between 36 and 60 points) between 5 and 10 2nd tier players (between 20 and 40 points) and around 10 3rd tier players (about 20 points) how a club decides to do that is up to them but it limits the amount of players of quality each club can employ. Which limits the demand for tier 1 and 2 players, which limits their value stopping wages massively escalating
Quote The next Keith Senior or Martin Gleeson wil still require a similar level of salary to those two. A player getting representative honours will still demand a higher wage than one who hasn't played representative RL. Regardless of the number of points they have on their quota a club like Quins or Salford is still unlikely to be able to pay more than one top level player (if they can even afford to do that) without facing going out of business. There is also still going to be the type of Richie Myler situation, he was getting Rep honours at Salford but still couldn't wait to get away and join a bigger club with more hope of silverware. This despite Salford offering in their words to make him the best paid player ever at Salford. He still wanted to play for a bigger club over one of the smaller ones and other players will feel the same. You cannot force players to join any club against their wishes
'" yes they will. they will want more money, the same as they do under the salary cap. However Richie Myler as a non-developed international player probably wouldnt get a gig at Warrington because likely couldnt fit him under the points cap. This would mean Salford werent in competition for Myler, very few of the big clubs would be, meaning Salford et al could offer him a lower wage, and he would be left with a choice to accept it or retire. If union came in for him, then Salford could either choose to increase his wage to compete or let him go, which is a better situation than now where they couldnt compete.
Quote
Changing to a points quota will not solve any problems we have now, they will still exist. The only way the squad strengths will balance is by every club growing their businesses to a point where all are able to pay the same total salary (full cap ideally). Then a player will be able to go to any club and get the same wage and all clubs will have an equal chance of competing for honours by being able to pay players of the same standard as the other clubs throughout their squad.'" nonsense, there will always be big clubs and little clubs, it is naive to think otherwise. What you really mean is that when the SC is at the level of the lowest common denominator the top quality players will move around on 3 year contracts taking their success with them, as has happened in Australia. We will also lose a lot of the top players to other sports. A points quota evens the playing talent in EXACTLY the same way as an SC, it just allows clubs to pay players what they are worth, attract better players and compete with union if they so wish (no one is going to force them to do so)
Quote
Bringing in a salary cap floor at a low level initially and requiring all SL clubs to be able to prove they can pay that minimum amount to get a licence would be a way to work towards a truly even playing field. The floor could then be raised over a sequence of licence cycles. This would drive all clubs to grow their businesses and increase turnover to get in and would have more chance of eventually evening all 14 clubs than any points quota would.'" no, it wont, you have already contradicted yourself by
using the example of Myler accepting less at Warrington, the same as Ellis did at Leeds, which shows that the big clubs will be able to attract the the better players on lower wages, a hard salary cap only entrenches that position
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wiganermike"Quite simply, some clubs in SL cannot afford to pay as much in salaries for their squad as others. Salford for example do not have the resources of Leeds. Not all clubs can afford to spend full cap and so do not.
Changing to a points system rather than a salary cap to constrain club squads may mean that one big club will have to release a player to fit into the points quota (as they have to with the SC anyway). It does not however alter the fact that the smaller clubs cannot afford to pay these players so the top players will still gravitate towards bigger clubs with bigger turnover.'"
and you are still missing the point that the bigger clubs can only fit so many players under the points cap, they can only fit so many players of a certain quality under the points cap so all the players cannot possibly gravitate towards the bigger clubs because the bigger clubs cannot employ them whether the players are asking for £10 or £10m
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1072 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2009 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2022 | Jan 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"and you are still missing the point that the bigger clubs can only fit so many players under the points cap, they can only fit so many players of a certain quality under the points cap so all the players cannot possibly gravitate towards the bigger clubs because the bigger clubs cannot employ them whether the players are asking for £10 or £10m'"
I understand that a points quota would mean that a club could only have a certain number of players of a certain quality in their squad. I read the article and understand mathematics. I also understand that a club that can only afford to pay a lot less on their squad (because their income is a lot smaller) will not be able to pick up a lot of the players that the richer clubs are forced to release without going bust in the process.
The players that are in this situation have only a 12 to 15 year career and will want to maintain their wage level. Those with demands beyond the spending capacity of the clubs that can fit them into the points quota will go to RU to get that wage so the weaker clubs won't necessarily strengthen from the system changing. You could end up with the competition as a whole being weakened (just as with a salary cap).
Neither system is ideal and neither is likely to produce the desired outcome. The title of the thread posed the question "a better way?" I just don't happen to think it is any better at doing what it sets out to do than the current system.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wiganermike"I understand that a points quota would mean that a club could only have a certain number of players of a certain quality in their squad. I read the article and understand mathematics. I also understand that a club that can only afford to pay a lot less on their squad (because their income is a lot smaller) will not be able to pick up a lot of the players that the richer clubs are forced to release without going bust in the process.
The players that are in this situation have only a 12 to 15 year career and will want to maintain their wage level. Those with demands beyond the spending capacity of the clubs that can fit them into the points quota will go to RU to get that wage so the weaker clubs won't necessarily strengthen from the system changing. You could end up with the competition as a whole being weakened (just as with a salary cap).
Neither system is ideal and neither is likely to produce the desired outcome. The title of the thread posed the question "a better way?" I just don't happen to think it is any better at doing what it sets out to do than the current system.'"
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
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1072 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2009 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2022 | Jan 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"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.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wiganermike"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 [umore[/u 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 [uless[/u likely to lose a player to union
A points system [uwould[/u 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
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14094 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2019 | Jul 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"
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 [iwould[/i 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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Billinge_Lump"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 [iwould[/i 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
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2912 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2024 | Jan 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"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. [uThis simply cannot be the case under a points system[/u.
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 ![Shocked icon_eek.gif](//www.rlfans.com/images/smilies//icon_eek.gif)
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Barnacle Bill"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
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14094 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2019 | Jul 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"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.
Quote 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?
Quote 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.
Quote
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.
Quote 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.
Quote 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.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Billinge_Lump"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
Quote
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
Quote 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.
Quote
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
Quote This system is a waste of time and would improve nothing.'" so no worse than the current cap then
Quote
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?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14094 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2019 | Jul 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"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.
Quote 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?
Quote so no worse than the current cap then'"
And no better, so what's the point?
Quote 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.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1072 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2009 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2022 | Jan 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| 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?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Billinge_Lump"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.'" not at all, clubs are limited in their spending by an arbitrary total that bares no relation to their financial position. But they are limited in what they can spend. Under a points system they would only be limited by their financial position and common sense. The prices wouldnt be forced up because they wouldnt need to go out and spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on every player because every player they were allowed to attract simply wouldnt be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and any club stupid enough to do that would deserve to go bust, we wouldnt lose by having clubs which are that poorly run leaving the top tier of the game
Quote Why are you wittering on about currency when that has nothing to do with the point made?'" you surely cannot be that stupid, i can only assume you are avoiding the point (which is actually two points you are oh so subtly trying to avoid)
Quote And no better, so what's the point?'" because it does allow clubs, where they see fit, to pay some players more, it also allows us to compete with union when a club decides it has the financial clout to do so
Quote
The only definitive way of assessing quality is international caps, everything else is opinion. You can't have a cap based on opinion.'"
well had you actually read the article you would see all criteria was definitive not opinion based.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 5064 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2017 | Feb 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Billinge_Lump"The only definitive way of assessing quality is international caps, everything else is opinion. You can't have a cap based on opinion.'"
You can have a cap based on opinion. The best subjective measure of a player's value is how much clubs are willing to pay him. So put a cap on total spending and let the clubs decide which players are higher quality and so worthy of a higher salary. Sorted.
Any objective measure will be far too co to be effective.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wiganermike"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.'"
what you are failling to understand is that under a monetary ceiling players still need to leave the big clubs, they still then need to go join the smaller clubs, under a points system the smaller clubs cant offer anymore or less they an offer exactly the same so for a player moving from a big club to a small club union is no more attractive. It is completely irrelevant.
you also now seem to be arguing that we need to concentrate all the good players at the big clubs because the smaller clubs cant afford them and if they were to leave the big clubs they would likely go to union. But proposing that lowering the amount of money we offer each player (which is what a monetary cap does) will somehow stop this, Which is blatantly nonsense.
And you are just wrong, there is no other way of describing it. If Leeds, Quins, Salford and Wire are all competing for a player, taking Leeds and Wire out of the equation makes it much easier for quins and Salford to sign them, it also puts quins and salford in a better bargaining position with the player so they can strike a better bargain.
Quote
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.'" there would of course be a set criteria for international honours, i would agree it would be silly to equate a kangeroo cap in a 4 nations final with playing for malta in the Mediterranean cup
Quote
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.'" leaving aside your demonstration being full of holes, counter-intuitive and contradictory it would keep the competition closer because clubs would be forced to invest in youth just to fill a squad of 25, this would mean more players, a stronger base, more spread and as such a more even competition
Quote
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?'" read the article, it tells you the benchmark and sets the criteria, you are aware of it because you mention it below, which is a little strange
Quote
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?'" there would be a set number of appearances in a season, i would say 10, 3 years after you make 10 appearances in a season you become a fully fledged player
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SBR"You can have a cap based on opinion. The best subjective measure of a player's value is how much clubs are willing to pay him. So put a cap on total spending and let the clubs decide which players are higher quality and so worthy of a higher salary. Sorted.
Any objective measure will be far too co to be effective.'"
except a cap based on total spending means the decision the club makes isnt on that players quality, but that players quality in relation to the space the have left on the cap ONLY.
A club may very well be of the opinion a player is worth £200k but if they only have £100k left then they cant offer than player a contract subjectively measured against his value
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 6268 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2005 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jul 2015 | Jul 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Both sides of this argument have some merit and like most it would seem, initially im not pro this system. Some great points have been made though and it COULD be worth a closer look at some point.
I also get the impression it could work a lot better in Australia.
Further to the union point; to be honest I think their raids on RL have been stopped to a large extent by a) their financial position and b) the failures of most who have gone. When we see people like Tomkins, Eastmond etc go, then we should be worried. Lee Smith? hmm not really
Lastly I'd be much more in favour of artificially raising the cap in time with a bonus system dependant on youth policy and a raise (not financially but a ten percent gain in theory) on overseas players. Teams still spend the same money but it 'costs' more cap to have an overseas player and you can pay a youth player more but the cap cost would be fifteen percent discounted.
Problem. Solved.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Dico"Both sides of this argument have some merit and like most it would seem, initially im not pro this system. Some great points have been made though and it COULD be worth a closer look at some point.
I also get the impression it could work a lot better in Australia.
Further to the union point; to be honest I think their raids on RL have been stopped to a large extent by a) their financial position and b) the failures of most who have gone. When we see people like Tomkins, Eastmond etc go, then we should be worried. Lee Smith? hmm not really
Lastly I'd be much more in favour of artificially raising the cap in time with a bonus system dependant on youth policy and a raise (not financially but a ten percent gain in theory) on overseas players. Teams still spend the same money but it 'costs' more cap to have an overseas player and you can pay a youth player more but the cap cost would be fifteen percent discounted.
Problem. Solved.'"
for a country that produces next to no back 5 players of quality we do seem awfully blasé about losing our best young back five players
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 17134 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2020 | Aug 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Dico"Band a raise (not financially but a ten percent gain in theory) on overseas players. '"
You might have the answer there. 50% "luxury tax" on "foreign" (however we define that....another debate entirely) players. Whether it's real and that tax goes to the RFL to distribute elsewhere (development officers and community coaches please) or just a virtual dent in the clubs spending capacity. Either way, it discourages the use of imports.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 5064 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2017 | Feb 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"except a cap based on total spending means the decision the club makes isnt on that players quality, but that players quality in relation to the space the have left on the cap ONLY.
A club may very well be of the opinion a player is worth £200k but if they only have £100k left then they cant offer than player a contract subjectively measured against his value'"
The club is measuring that player's quality in relation to all the other players they could sign with that money. The salary cap just means clubs are using the same scale.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Richie"You might have the answer there. 50% "luxury tax" on "foreign" (however we define that....another debate entirely) players. Whether it's real and that tax goes to the RFL to distribute elsewhere (development officers and community coaches please) or just a virtual dent in the clubs spending capacity. Either way, it discourages the use of imports.'"
wouldnt that make cheaper imports even more attractive than top quality ones?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 17134 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2020 | Aug 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"wouldnt that make cheaper imports even more attractive than top quality ones?'"
Only in the same way that cheaper players are more attractive now than more expensive players.
|
|
|
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) |
|