Salary Cap Change

So, clearly it's time to review the benefits of the salary cap.

I've got a few thoughts on it all.

1. It's apparently meant to equalise the competition, and though on the surface that may appear to be the case, behind the scenes we all no that isn't true.
2. What is so bad about teams being able to spend whatever they want? If that means teams die out because they overspend, or don't compete because they spend within their means and can't buy players, then so be it, that is life. Having a comp that isn't equal hasn't affected the EPL, and look how that turned out this year, the 5000-1 pop won, and there is no reason why it couldn't happen in the NRL

I think it's time to scrap the cap and any restriction and I troduce a players points system. I know it has been discussed before and it would require significant thought and analysis, but if the NRL truly want to disperse talent across all teams and level the playing field, then a points ranking system for players is the only thing that will work, because the salary cap clearly doesn't and has, is and will be rorted again. Y multiple sides, which is lie,ly still happening as we speak. But there could be no rorting an open and transparent points system. It wouldn't restrict what you can pay a player, it wouldn't prevent the true stars of the game getting additional sponsorship, but it would prevent clubs saying they will get TPAs for non first graders likers Daniel Harrison et al.

Thoughts?

i'm still a fan of a soft cap


gives teams the ability to go over but they need to pay tax to those that stayed under, the tax rate increasing every year you're over

[quote="Ice"]
If that means teams die out because they overspend, or don't compete because they spend within their means and can't buy players, then so be it, that is life.

I would rather my team didn't die out completely due to poor decision making by people I have no control over, thankyou very much.

I'm not sure I have the right answer. The NRL first needs to decide what it achieves with a salary cap. If it is equalising the comp that is one thing, but if it is for team survival then that is another.

I think some sort of luxury tax is certainly one thing, maybe dollar for dollar for the first million over the cap, then 2 for 1 for over that amount etc. Before that though I would allow the players to benefit from their own brand licensing. If someone wants to buy an official Warriors or Kiwi jersey with Johnson 7 on the back, Shaun Johnson should get a percentage of that.

Dip wrote:I'm not sure I have the right answer. The NRL first needs to decide what it achieves with a salary cap. If it is equalising the comp that is one thing, but if it is for team survival then that is another.

I think some sort of luxury tax is certainly one thing, maybe dollar for dollar for the first million over the cap, then 2 for 1 for over that amount etc. Before that though I would allow the players to benefit from their own brand licensing. If someone wants to buy an official Warriors or Kiwi jersey with Johnson 7 on the back, Shaun Johnson should get a percentage of that.

One thing I dont understand with the cap and TPA's - is why they allow TPA's.

The cap is trying to promote an even comp by spreading out all the higher paid players across the clubs (in theory anyway). Everyone has the same amount of money to spend so therefore in theory teams should be pretty even.

Then they introduce TPA's... which literally allow the more marketable clubs to pay players what ever the fuck they want. Popular clubs, and one city teams generally have shitloads more access to these TPA's - which go against everything that the salary cap means to do.

Personally, I think the only way to fix it is to have a cap and then a penalty tax when clubs go over - that way if the Broncos/Roosters/Raiders who ever/ want to spend 3million more on players (which they could be doing right now for all we know) then at least they have to pay a tax which benefits the league in general.

Pieman wrote:One thing I dont understand with the cap and TPA's - is why they allow TPA's.

What do you think the NRL can do to stop TPAs

If Nike, or Kellog's, or some other company want to pay Cameron Smith to advertise their product, what do you think the NRL can do to stop them?

All they can do is stop the clubs from providing TPAs. And this is already against the rules, and teams get punished if they get caight doing it.

Milchcow wrote:

What do you think the NRL can do to stop TPAs

If Nike, or Kellog's, or some other company want to pay Cameron Smith to advertise their product, what do you think the NRL can do to stop them?

All they can do is stop the clubs from providing TPAs. And this is already against the rules, and teams get punished if they get caight doing it.

The UFC did it when they signed with Reebok. It's doable. I don't agree with it, but it's doable.

If they players want to make money by selling their brand they should be entitled to do it.

As long as money is involved then there will always be inequity, regardless of the cap or TPAs etc etc. that's why I think clubs use of money and players ability to gain sponsorship should be completed unlimited and a "Player Point System" should be a much fairer system IF team equality is the objective of the cap, cause clearly the current system has massive flaws.

Pieman: the answer is restraint of trade.You can't stop anyone earning a wage - it's illegal. So you have a salary cap that is a crippled system designed to try and limit the damage, so to speak, and create as level a playing field as possible.


Sure, the high visibility clubs will garner more interest by default, and also have more opportunities to rort the system, but it's not a system designed to HELP those clubs, it's an imperfect system designed to provide the opposite.

No use having a whinge about it, IMO, but I like the "tax" system you suggest more than I like "player points" system.

If someone has a perfect system, I'd like to know about it. But if you think you hate the Broncos now, wait until we have an unlimited cap!

dasherhalo wrote:Pieman: the answer is restraint of trade.You can't stop anyone earning a wage - it's illegal. So you have a salary cap that is a crippled system designed to try and limit the damage, so to speak, and create as level a playing field as possible.


Sure, the high visibility clubs will garner more interest by default, and also have more opportunities to rort the system, but it's not a system designed to HELP those clubs, it's an imperfect system designed to provide the opposite.

No use having a whinge about it, IMO, but I like the "tax" system you suggest more than I like  "player points" system.

If someone has a perfect system, I'd like to know about it. But if you think you hate the Broncos now, wait until we have an unlimited cap!

We all remember the 90s

Good times, good times....

You dont really follow english football if you think the Epl is a success for british clubs. Outside the top 4 most yeqrs it is predictable who will finish where. Leicester winning os finally a breath of fresh air that has never happened before. Tell the clubs in the 4th and 5th tier that the system works. Its a worry becausr teams are cheating some start saying the system doesn't work.

dasherhalo wrote:Pieman: the answer is restraint of trade.You can't stop anyone earning a wage - it's illegal. So you have a salary cap that is a crippled system designed to try and limit the damage, so to speak, and create as level a playing field as possible.


Sure, the high visibility clubs will garner more interest by default, and also have more opportunities to rort the system, but it's not a system designed to HELP those clubs, it's an imperfect system designed to provide the opposite.

No use having a whinge about it, IMO, but I like the "tax" system you suggest more than I like  "player points" system.

If someone has a perfect system, I'd like to know about it. But if you think you hate the Broncos now, wait until we have an unlimited cap!

I don't mind the tax idea. Why don't you like the idea of players being allocated a points rating out of interest.

I only advocate on the basis that the league wants an even distribution of playing talent, for no other reason. Because there is absolutely no way the cap either 1, does it or 2, is fair for all teams.

Ice wrote:

I don't mind the tax idea. Why don't you like the idea of players being allocated a points rating out of interest.

I only advocate on the basis that the league wants an even distribution of playing talent, for no other reason. Because there is absolutely no way the cap either 1, does it or 2, is fair for all teams.

Noice.

Why? Well, it's subjective, to a degree beyond valuing someone by their wage. I can't imagine a bigger can of worms than "a panel" assigning value based on past performance. If I want to play fantasy football, that's exactly what I'll do, but if you want a shit fight, try and bring that to the real world.

Further, the market is too small. This is the killer that stops the NRL from copying the big boys in the world stage. The number of players available is way too low to accurately assign a fair yearly value to. If I recall my high school maths/statistics well enough, if you have too small a sample size, you compress the results in the middle, and the extremes are overstated. With dollars, that is fairly easy to balance up (most people can add up 25 amounts, right?) but can you imagine a fluid value assigned to players each season??? That'd put a spike in your forward planning. Imagine if your team had the unfortunate distinction of having brilliant stats, but but lost a heap of tight games and came 13th.... but were way over the "cap".

We tried an IPL-style auction at our indoor cricket centre where there were 8 A-Grade sides. It didn't work, simply because getting a few superstars outweighed playing with a few nuffies. The storm have been doing that for years!

Look at the arguments over who is the bast NSW Halfback then see if you want to get someone to rank 400 players in order from best to worst.

So ice you want a system a bit like this...

0-15 1st grade game 10 points
15-40 games 11 points
40 -70 games 12 points
70-120games 15 points
120-180 games 18 points
180 -250 games 20 points
250+ games 15 points

Add 1 point to number state of origin series played in the last 2 years
Add 1 point for test representative in the last 2 years

Clubs have a base salary points cap of 25top players x 16 points per player average or something similar.

If a club happens to break the point cap one year because players tick over into the next point bracket, the next year their salary cap points is reduced by that amount.

This is an overly simplistic system that has heaps of flaws, but us this along the lines of what you are suggesting ice?

The main problem with that is someone like JT or Cam Smith would have less points than someone like Ryan Hoffman or Simon Mannering.

Dip wrote:The main problem with that is someone like JT or Cam Smith would have less points than someone like Ryan Hoffman or Simon Mannering.

Yep I get that, the points amount for each range could be varied as well as the overall cap amount. I knocked this up in 5 mins at 7 this morning.
Maybe somebody with more time then me could work out with the above system how many points each club would add up to with their round 1 team list this year.

Ice wrote:

I don't mind the tax idea. Why don't you like the idea of players being allocated a points rating out of interest.

I only advocate on the basis that the league wants an even distribution of playing talent, for no other reason. Because there is absolutely no way the cap either 1, does it or 2, is fair for all teams.

Firstly I agree that if eg Nike wants to sponsor GI - then it should be allowed to happen. The club shouldn't have anything to do with it it and I dont see anything wrong with a player being sponsored by a company. Clubs offering TPAs is just wrong. Having unlimited TPA's is wrong too.

As I said before - Having TPA's that they clubs offer to players (which is against the rules) is against everything that the salary cap is doing. How often do we hear about a player leaving a club or wanting out or disputing because they werent paid their TPA's? The club shouldnt have any fucking thing to do with it.

Its when the clubs promise it in their negotiations with a player - thats where I have my problem with it.

I dont like the points system because of a few things
1. How a players given points?
2. If its based on talent, its so subjective, Someone who is a 5 to one team might be regarded as a 7 to one team or vice versa. If its number of games - just because you longer more does not mean you are the best player.
3. Who allocates the points? Clubs or the NRL?

Personally, I think the Tax system is the only way to go with it. American sports generally do everything right - if they do it when we should copy it and apply it to our code. I particularly like it because the tax that is paid should go to the grassroots development of the game.

Pieman wrote:


Personally, I think the Tax system is the only way to go with it. American sports generally do everything right - if they do it when we should copy it and apply it to our code. I particularly like it because the tax that is paid should go to the grassroots development of the game.

A tax should go to the other non tax paying clubs, because that's the mechanism that will distribute wealth and improve their salaries. Grassroots development costs should come from the general coffers.