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

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.



Or if they only got James Roby rather than [url=http://www.rlwc08.com/players/ireland/bob_beswick.aspxBob Beswick[/url?

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

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

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.

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?

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?



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



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?




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



No different to a monetary cap then?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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.

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.



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

.



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.



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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Quote ="Barnacle Bill"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......www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -smph.html

Quote ="Barnacle Bill"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......www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -smph.html

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

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

So that's between 84 and 140 'stars'. Players who have recently played for Australia, New Zealand or England. Something doesn't quite add up here.

all 16 clubs were in favour of penalizing the storm

all clubs favour the current cap but are looking at some minor changes

of course it does, there are currently 15 'star' players at leeds (ignoring developed exemptions) 15 at saints, 13 at Wigan, 9 at bradford, 11 at Hull, 14 at wire, 12 at Hudds, thats 89 at just those 7 clubs,

thats a lovely bit of irrelevance.

That simply isnt the case.

Wow, there's quite a range of quality in that group as well. I take it you're going back a few years, throwing in players who had try outs in mid season international knockabouts and from when England was made up of those not good enough be considered for Great Britain? "Stars" indeed. This idea keeps getting worse.

Are you saying that with the points system Leeds would no longer be allowed to field 15 "star players"?

no, not at all, all players have either played a full test for one of the top nations, or represented one of the 2nd tier nations in a World cup

Leeds for instance consists of Webb(NZ), Senior (GB), Hall(GB), Smith(GB), Mcguire(GB), Burrow(GB), Diskin (GB), Sinfield (GB), Eastwood (NZ), Lauitiiti (NZ + Samoa), Buderus (Australia + New South Wales), Peacock (GB), Lueluai (Samoa) Bailey(GB), Jamie Jones Buchanon (GB)

Saints consists of
Wellens (GB), Pryce(GB), Eastmond (GB), Graham(GB), Gardner (GB), Soliola (NZ), Gidley (Australia + NSW) Meli (NZ) Fozzard (GB) Cunningham(GB), Puletua(NZ+Samoa) Wilkin (GB), Roby (GB), Fa'asavalu (GB), Flannery (Queensland)

Warrington consists of

Matt King (aus+NSW) Chris Bridge (GB), Briers (GB + Wales) Myler(GB), Morley(GB), Carvell (GB), Westwood (GB), Anderson (NZ), Anderson (NZ) Solomona (NZ+Samoa) Higham (GB) Clarke(GB), Atkins (GB)

Which of these players are you thinking are only counted because of a mid-season knockabout where the 1st choice didnt get picked?