Hypothetical - Scrap the cap bring in a points system

[Rodzilla]

I'm with Marley on this one.
Shit clubs will fold and be replaced by others, eventually you'll wind up with a competition of only strong clubs.

or a competition like the 1990's NSWRL/ARL

strong clubs going for the title and shit clubs remaining shit, it was a great time for the competition tbh and it was real

 

[steeliz]

If the salary cap is ever challenged it court it would cease to exist. It only exists because of the good will of the players.

Under the Australian constitution it is illegal to limit a citizens earning potential.

 

[Rodzilla]

If the salary cap is ever challenged it court it would cease to exist. It only exists because of the good will of the players.

Under the Australian constitution it is illegal to limit a citizens earning potential.

the clubs should match that goodwill, they should have a profit cap so that they cant make much more money than they spend, and all executives should have a salary cap as well

 

[CrittaMagic69]

Losing clubs means less games a round, means shorter season, means less games to telecast means less money in the NRL.

Shorter season? Not really, less clubs means we can play both home and away, the way it should be. Less games to telecast? More like higher quality NRL games each weekend. Less money? Short term, yes..long term, not really.

 

[N4TE]

I think you have misuderstood what my wife and I proposed. Many players in that team, El Masri, Ben Harris, Matt Utai, Braith Anasta, Brent Sherwin, Roy Asostasi, Willie Mason, Steve Price, Corey Hughes, Adam Perry, JT and SBW, were all players we gave their first opportunity in first grade. El Masri, Sherwin and Corey Hughes were all local juniors worth zero points whileever they stayed at the Dogs. The others were all brought into the Dogs system before they had played for another NRl CLUB and thus ranked at one point. There is no way that team would have been over the limit of 60 points. Despite SBW and JT playing for NZ and Australia respectively they would have stayed as a 1 pointer until they left the Bulldogs, they are now 5 pointers. I acknowledge there are some weaknesses in the system, particularly players who are no longer up to origin or test level, which is why I say players who have not been selected in or retired from test football can be considered by the NRL to a reduction to 2 points. That 2004 team had only a ahndful of "inported" players whose points would have gone up, the current team in my view is more of an issue. Players like S Mortimer, P Mortimer, Brentnall would have been a 1 pointer their entire career, all the Hughes brothers a zero for their entire career.

That's a pretty interesting system. I appreciate the thought that has gone into it. I have had to re-read it a few times to get the ins and outs of it but it's not bad.

One problem I can see is rich clubs with not very big junior programs really pouring the money into that side of things. So Roosters all of a sudden going from 2 to 3 recruiting staff to 10 that concentrate on juniors offering bigger money than they ever would have got before your system to come to the Roosters.

Also Brisbane would always be strong because of their big junior pool. But that's the case now anyway I suppose.

With your system Canberra would probably have won a couple of Grand Finals in the last few years.

Nah but I don't mind it though, good stuff

 

[gee333]

For a few years I was sprucing the luxury tax approach mentioned by hayes... would still require the nrl to police what clubs are spending but if they were going to earn income off it they would probably do a better job of policing the cap than they do now... but if rich clubs wanted to spend big on top tier they could do so... it would simply mean they pay 2 or 3 times the value of the player... would make them think twice about their recruitment. The tax could be used by nrl to help prop up junior league... fund weaker clubs... whatever... so long as it developed the game. BUT I really appreciate and like the idea of the points system gbrussell has outlined. Very intuitive and I could see it working after a hard adjustment period. Very cutting edge and a big scary step but if it is a long term improvement then why not? And before you throw up one single negative about the system don't forget that every single approach will have its flaws... its a fact based system that ranks players accordingly. It takes $ out of the equation. Well done. Pity it may never happen in the NRL. Was it something you've seen elsewhere? If so... was it working effectively?

 

[CroydonDog]

I like the luxury tax idea too. I think baseball has it (known as the Yankee Tax).

 

[Ahecee]

The points system sounds overly complex, and possibly worse than what we have now.

I've long liked the one mentioned here already, have a cap, but if a club wishes to go over it they can, and they pay dollar for dollar into a fund for it (i.e. go over the cap by $500,000, then play another $500,000 into the fund on top of that) those funds are then split between all teams who stayed under it.

That doesn't hold any team back, and gives a financial boost to teams that can't afford to go over (or are just very very good at developing players and can stay under anyway).

This also is way better than the NRL helping to keep "superstars" in the game and giving a unfair advantage anyway as they proposed.