2020 recruits

[Alan79]

Well said - it seems to be a rule put in place by people with no idea of how players develop - keeping the option of adding players to the first grade squad after a certain date makes sense as it would provide incentive and reward for those prepared to work hard and who have on field ability. Nominating those players before the comp starts is very limiting.

It is a system put in place by people that have no idea. I think thats the general consensus about the NRL administration these days, they just have no idea. It's like seeing a dog in the upper branches of a tree. It just makes you wonder how they got there and why nobody has removed them from a place they certainly shouldn't be in.

With 25 rounds at 2 players per round that’s an extra 50 players allowed to play NRL (on top of the 30 registered). That’s a bucket load of extra cash to be paid out, since players aren’t going to hang around for what might be their 1 game for $4200, there would be contract demands. Even at, say, $30k each (minimum wage) that’s $1.5m. How does a club manage its salary cap, it’s not like players are excluded from the cap if they are dropped for bad form or injured.

You can’t play NRL these days without training and concentrating 100% on your game. There’s no spare time to earn money to live on. It defeats the purpose of a salary cap which is OK for us and the “rich” teams, but others would be dropping like flies. We would have a 5 or 6 team competition. The cap is a PIA but unfortunately the alternatives are far worse.

Go Dogs

In real world circumstances it's highly unlikely that 50 players will make huge leaps in ability in any given year which is the basis that you are referring to. I'm operating on the assumption that not every club would be regularly selecting 2 players per week to leapfrog not only the top 17, but the 13 back up players all that frequently. If 12 players in any given season showed they were demanding NRL promotions at some stage it would not be that expensive. I'd assume it wouldn't happen from round 1 and in many cases they'd still be behind the top 17 starters they were filling in for. The top 30 in most cases are there because they've demonstrated ability over a prolonged period of time. But lets just say that a club loses two outside backs to injury in a month by 1/3 of the way through the season. Of the 13 second string players none of them are in the same form as a youngster who is playing out of his skin. For the sake of the discussion I'll offer some scenarios.

(1) A 20yo was a star up till his 18th birthday when access to alcohol and intoxicated women who might like to do pleasing things to him meant that he allowed football to become of secondary importance to him. In those years from 18-19 years old he put on a little weight and lost a lot of fitness. Without quite realizing it amid all the fun he was having he slipped down the pecking order drastically. When he has a lightbulb moment about his sliding chances, he gets his nutrition right, gives up alcohol, pushes himself in every aspect of training and gets himself back ahead of the guys his age who slipped ahead of him while he went off the rails a bit.

(2) We have a player who has loads of talent that has always just made the squad because coaches see that about him. Physically he's been getting dominated since he was 13, but he's ticked every box talent wise and through sheer determination has stayed in touch with the pack when he shouldn't have through talent alone. He finally hit's a point where he has his growth spurt puts on the required muscle throughout the season and then when he's able to match the physicality of those around him he starts to look like a world beater as his talent shines through.

Neither scenario is far fetched. For a club that has persisted with either of these two players, they'd love to promote them. But two other players that looked a little better in the season prior were selected on the development contracts. Either of these two players that have emerged as genuine NRL ready players might make or break the teams premiership chances. They're still not rated above the injured players they'll fill in for, but they've eclipsed the reserves in the top 30 and the players on development contracts. But because of a stupid rule restricting them from getting their debut, the teams year is hampered because the club has to choose players of lesser ability who haven't shown close to the same form in that particular year. Both of these players might deserve to be promoted and I don't think that the rules should restrict clubs from taking advantage of that. They stuck by the players because they saw what they could be even when there were guys that could potentially do the job better at that particular point in time. For the players themselves it might just mean that they get their shot the following year. But for the club and their fans their premiership chances have gone begging because the NRL cares more about a drop of money in their financial pond than the chances of a team. We as fans deserve to see our most worthy players at any particular moment get a path into the NRL. The clubs deserve that too. The NRL have to be financially responsible, but not to the detriment of the clubs and fans. I think it's a huge area where the NRL administration teams are forgetting why they have their jobs. If nobody was watching the games the current crew running the show would probably be earning their bread elsewhere.

I'll ask you the question in the simplest manner I can. Do you want to see the players that are most deserving on any given week to be playing in your team, or do you want the NRL to tightly hold onto a few extra dollars that I don't think would break the bank?

Before answering the question I'll just say that I recall an article around the start of the offseason saying that the NRL admin were planning on rewarding the brilliant fucking job they do with a million dollars in bonuses. If the money to pay out a million dollars in bonuses is there for the administration team, I think that we as fans are definitely more deserving of them spending (possibly in the most extreme of cases) that 1.5 million. They're in those cushy high paying jobs because the clubs provide a valuable and marketable competition and because we fans induce the sponsorship that pays those wages and further that we pay for tickets merchandise, food at the venues etc. If I had to choose where the potential 1.5 million was spent I'd certainly want to know that it's going towards a system that allows any club to be putting the best players at any given moment on the field for the benefit of the fans. Like I said earlier this system actively reduces a clubs ability to do that. We have a lot of players in every club that may come on in leaps and bounds at any time. This system actively forces clubs to only pick six of them that are potentially able to earn promotion throughout the year.

 

[Alan79]

Of course it's hypothetical, but if it was feed up as Alan79 posted then clubs would be allowed to have up to 50. If they don't have to name them before the season starts then they can add or subtract at will. From memory to be classified as a development player they need to played a limited number of NRL games. So they play their limited number and then you bring in another one. Keeping in mind that currently DP's aren't allowed to play NRL until after 30 June. Whether its 10, 20 or 50 the "richer" clubs would just sign up the talent because they have the money, which was the point.

Go Dogs

I have to let you know that I've had to let out three huge sighs of frustration and give myself a long face palm while shaking my head at this comment. I'm not sure if you realize that the richer clubs do tend to snare most of the top talent that is willing to forego the loyalty to the clubs that develop them when they show their potential consistently as youngsters. Look at the roosters who picked up that young Queensland halfback that's turning 18 this year. Sam Walker I think is his name.

Under this system if a club that isn't rich has persisted with a guy through the years where they recognized they were a hidden gem and worked to overcome his flaws, they're potentially going to lose that player before they got the chance to reap the smallest benefit. Even if it's just for a few matches in a single season when your top line players go down, you should be able to promote any player that is standing out. You can't always predict when things will fall into place with players. The rich clubs will tend not to pick up every gem that lacks polish because they're busily picking up the ones that are polished. With this system that player wjo suddenly shines might move on without ever having played for the club that worked so hard with a polishing rag. In simple terms, the fact that they're not able to be promoted when they're suddenly dominating might even make them more likely to want to move on. The best example I can draw for us is that Aiden Sezur got frustrated with a lack of promotion and moved on when he was pretty young. This rule will make these frustration tantrums more likiely to happen. And the argument that this rule is a fiscally based one carries no weight for me. Again look at the fact that the NRL admin clearly had no issues with paying themselves out a huge bonus.

And put it this way, if those six development players all get promoted that triple the amount of money they're going to pay out if they're getting incentive payments. Whatever way I look at it this rule makes zero sense to me.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I have to let you know that I've had to let out three huge sighs of frustration and give myself a long face palm while shaking my head at this comment. I'm not sure if you realize that the richer clubs do tend to snare most of the top talent that is willing to forego the loyalty to the clubs that develop them when they show their potential consistently as youngsters. Look at the roosters who picked up that young Queensland halfback that's turning 18 this year. Sam Walker I think is his name.

Under this system if a club that isn't rich has persisted with a guy through the years where they recognized they were a hidden gem and worked to overcome his flaws, they're potentially going to lose that player before they got the chance to reap the smallest benefit. Even if it's just for a few matches in a single season when your top line players go down, you should be able to promote any player that is standing out. You can't always predict when things will fall into place with players. The rich clubs will tend not to pick up every gem that lacks polish because they're busily picking up the ones that are polished. With this system that player wjo suddenly shines might move on without ever having played for the club that worked so hard with a polishing rag. In simple terms, the fact that they're not able to be promoted when they're suddenly dominating might even make them more likely to want to move on. The best example I can draw for us is that Aiden Sezur got frustrated with a lack of promotion and moved on when he was pretty young. This rule will make these frustration tantrums more likiely to happen. And the argument that this rule is a fiscally based one carries no weight for me. Again look at the fact that the NRL admin clearly had no issues with paying themselves out a huge bonus.

And put it this way, if those six development players all get promoted that triple the amount of money they're going to pay out if they're getting incentive payments. Whatever way I look at it this rule makes zero sense to me.

Sorry but I just don't see how this system would stop the "richer" clubs poaching talent as they do now just more so without any limits on the number of their DP's. The "poorer" clubs might be able to afford 6 DP's as it is now, but the "richer" clubs can afford multiples of that. So they can start signing them up when the players are younger/less experienced.

Obviously there are variables, there always will be, but if a "rich" club can afford 10/20/50 DP's then they have much better mathematical chance of unearthing talent than the "poorer" clubs who can only afford 3 or 6 DP's.

To use your analogy, the club might not even get the chance to "polish" a player, as a "rich" club will sign them up as soon as show even the slightest lustre. What you are describing is similar to what happens in the US where college scouts sign up potential players when they are in primary school and middle school. Offering scholarships to senior high school, jobs for parents and relatives, paying accommodation costs so they can go the best school for their chosen sport. This is when they are still years away from college, the way it's going they will be signing up babies based on their DNA. If you are concerned about player welfare then think of the pressure on a 9/10/11 year old on a 5/10 year contract with scholarship, personal tuition, his father/mother/brother in a job provided by the team, living in team owned house away from home.

A limit on the number of DP's is the best method of spreading the talent around followed by the Cap on player payments. For sure it's not perfect but it's better than the open slather alternatives.

Go Dogs

 

[TwinTurbo]

I'll ask you the question in the simplest manner I can. Do you want to see the players that are most deserving on any given week to be playing in your team, or do you want the NRL to tightly hold onto a few extra dollars that I don't think would break the bank?

What!!! Choose A or B, when A has absolutely nothing to do with B, they are not co dependant. If a DP doesn't play that week he doesn't get paid (under your system) so the club saves the money NOT the NRL.

Obviously I'm missing something because the above is just too obvious, please help me out here?

Go Dogs

 

[flamebouyant]

Of course it's hypothetical, but if it was feed up as Alan79 posted then clubs would be allowed to have up to 50. If they don't have to name them before the season starts then they can add or subtract at will. From memory to be classified as a development player they need to played a limited number of NRL games. So they play their limited number and then you bring in another one. Keeping in mind that currently DP's aren't allowed to play NRL until after 30 June. Whether its 10, 20 or 50 the "richer" clubs would just sign up the talent because they have the money, which was the point.

Go Dogs

Fair point, but do you think it's working? Are rich clubs still stockpiling? I think so.