NOT CROSS FORUM NRL 2022 Round 7 Discussion

[Sproj]

Quick google search and it's saying "3 years over 2million" So you'd have to guess he's on minimum 700k. This is slight unders for him, he'd probably get 850-1m on the open market, but you can understand someone taking unders to stay at a premiership winning club.

As @BroncsFan said, Paps reportedly re-signed for 650k, we aren't just pulling this number from our butt (though the reporter might have been). The other points as mentioned in his post stand. And yes, every salary is guesswork but it was also reported Paps signed on for less because he had a head knock.

Regardless, it is interesting that top teams very rarely lose highly sought after players but bottom clubs struggle to retain them. Also, some players leave poor teams to go to better teams for less.

I am not blaming the players either, this is the way the system works and if I were them, I would be willing to take a bit less salary to stay at a club I like and to play in a winning culture. I don't know if I would be willing to sacrifice 400k+ a year for that though.

In any case, whether it is guesswork or not, it highlights the point of the discussion, the salary cap doesn't work. It is supposed to disperse talent across the competition. Well we currently have 2 teams that can win the comp unless injuries smash them.

 

[BooKhaki]

As @BroncsFan said, Paps reportedly re-signed for 650k, we aren't just pulling this number from our butt (though the reporter might have been). The other points as mentioned in his post stand. And yes, every salary is guesswork but it was also reported Paps signed on for less because he had a head knock.

Regardless, it is interesting that top teams very rarely lose highly sought after players but bottom clubs struggle to retain them. Also, some players leave poor teams to go to better teams for less.

I am not blaming the players either, this is the way the system works and if I were them, I would be willing to take a bit less salary to stay at a club I like and to play in a winning culture. I don't know if I would be willing to sacrifice 400k+ a year for that though.

In any case, whether it is guesswork or not, it highlights the point of the discussion, the salary cap doesn't work. It is supposed to disperse talent across the competition. Well we currently have 2 teams that can win the comp unless injuries smash them.

The only reporting I found was 3 years over 2 million, that's more than 650k.

The salary cap, while it isn't perfect, it does work. As you can see with so many people leaving Storm and Penrith. Storm have lost Bromwichx2, Smith, Kaufusi and likely Munster, and you think they should also lose Paps? Penrith have lost Laurie, Burton, Api, Capewell and Kikau and could lose more when a few of them come up after next year.

Penrith especially have developed young blokes and locked them in long term at the right time, instead of doing what Brisbane do and letting them all hit the open market and go into bidding wars. Certain clubs handle the cap better, and also have better coaching and development.

 

[Sproj]

The only reporting I found was 3 years over 2 million, that's more than 650k.

The salary cap, while it isn't perfect, it does work. As you can see with so many people leaving Storm and Penrith. Storm have lost Bromwichx2, Smith, Kaufusi and likely Munster, and you think they should also lose Paps? Penrith have lost Laurie, Burton, Api, Capewell and Kikau and could lose more when a few of them come up after next year.

Penrith especially have developed young blokes and locked them in long term at the right time, instead of doing what Brisbane do and letting them all hit the open market and go into bidding wars. Certain clubs handle the cap better, and also have better coaching and development.

Let me simplify the point. I have no problem with Paps staying at Melbourne per se. I have no problem with Penrith stockpiling talent they have developed themselves, in fact I applaud them for it. I actually wish the NRL rewarded clubs who develop their own talent more. I have problems with players staying at clubs for WAY unders and then because of this (and other murky means) then being able to attract top end talent from struggling clubs as well.

The Melbourne Storms of this world should not be able to get a State of Origin playing Coates on unders from another club who developed them. The Roosters should not be allowed to poach whoever they want when they want, including trying to entice Haas from a club he has an existing deal with and then the media got on board in support of this.

Of course some teams manage the cap better than others but some of those same teams (Roosters, Storm) have outside cap advantages that other teams don't. What is the purpose of a cap if certain teams are allowed to work around it but others aren't?

 

[BooKhaki]

Let me simplify the point. I have no problem with Paps staying at Melbourne per se. I have no problem with Penrith stockpiling talent they have developed themselves, in fact I applaud them for it. I actually wish the NRL rewarded clubs who develop their own talent more. I have problems with players staying at clubs for WAY unders and then because of this (and other murky means) then being able to attract top end talent from struggling clubs as well.

The Melbourne Storms of this world should not be able to get a State of Origin playing Coates on unders from another club who developed them. The Roosters should not be allowed to poach whoever they want when they want, including trying to entice Haas from a club he has an existing deal with and then the media got on board in support of this.

Of course some teams manage the cap better than others but some of those same teams (Roosters, Storm) have outside cap advantages that other teams don't. What is the purpose of a cap if certain teams are allowed to work around it but others aren't?

I guess that's where the problem is, we don't know when a player takes way unders as all the contracts are guesswork, and then you need to consider 3rd party deals.

With the Coates deal, you're basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to go to a club he chooses for less money because it's not fair. That's taking away a players choice, he should absolutely be allowed to go to a better club for less money if he wants to. I'd be with you and complaining if Storm signed him for more money than what Brisbane offered, as that would be strange. But you can't stop a bloke taking less to try and better himself in a better system.

 

[Sproj]

I guess that's where the problem is, we don't know when a player takes way unders as all the contracts are guesswork, and then you need to consider 3rd party deals.

With the Coates deal, you're basically saying he shouldn't be allowed to go to a club he chooses for less money because it's not fair. That's taking away a players choice, he should absolutely be allowed to go to a better club for less money if he wants to. I'd be with you and complaining if Storm signed him for more money than what Brisbane offered, as that would be strange. But you can't stop a bloke taking less to try and better himself in a better system.

But again, contracts are guess work, did he really go on unders?

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree otherwise we will go around in circles.

 

[BooKhaki]

But again, contracts are guess work, did he really go on unders?

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree otherwise we will go around in circles.

IIRC, that's what was reported at the time. Brisbane offered him over 500k/yr and he took less.

It would be a much easier discussion to have with visible salaries, hopefully that happens in the near future.

 

[NZWarriors.com]

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]Dixpat - nzwarriors.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .February 3, 2014
MESSAGES: 2,131
REACTIONS: 4,727[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

Why not go the Polo way and give every player a points value in each position say 1-10 and allow clubs to pay them whatever they choose but the starting team for each week’s match cannot exceed say a total of 102 points.

Players points value would be reassessed each year against a specific set of criteria for that position.

The concept would need some fleshing out but should even teams on a week to week basis

---

 

[Super Freak]

Bunker officials should have been dropped, as well.

 

[Sproj]

Any chance of sacking all of them from every game?

 

[Scorchie]

It’s interesting how the narrative in the media was how great and awesome the Storm were, and not how damaging the 70-6 result was. It’s week 6/7 and a club is losing by 60+

Not good for the product

 

[NZWarriors.com]

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]wizards rage - nzwarriors.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .April 18, 2016
MESSAGES: 6,596
REACTIONS: 17,489[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]Scorchie - broncoshq.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .March 16, 2008
MESSAGES: 2,746
Reaction Score: 3,013[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

damaging the 70-6 result was.

---

70-10 mate. We’re almost twice as good in attack than what your stating

---

Smash em bro

 

[Allo]

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]Dixpat - nzwarriors.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .February 3, 2014
MESSAGES: 2,131
REACTIONS: 4,727[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

Why not go the Polo way and give every player a points value in each position say 1-10 and allow clubs to pay them whatever they choose but the starting team for each week’s match cannot exceed say a total of 102 points.

Players points value would be reassessed each year against a specific set of criteria for that position.

The concept would need some fleshing out but should even teams on a week to week basis

---

That’s a version similar to how the NRLW was run until this coming season. Each player was valued depending on representative caps from the previous few years and there was a cap of x-points for the whole squad.

There’s merit to the idea, so far as talent dispersion and giving fringe players and rookies a decent shot at playing, and stops clubs picking up premium players that are ‘unnecessary’ just because they can afford/underpay them.

But it has flaws at the same time in that a rookie can come from the clouds and become a marquee level player in a season and the club are forced to lose players to come under the points cap the next season, as opposed to having extra time with multi year deals at a set, sometimes sliding, but still known, value.

But overall with your idea, all you’re doing is removing the money limit and putting a subjective (to the criteria) value on how good that player is in that particular season.

You’ll have some players potentially moving clubs every season because their value could change drastically and the clubs can’t hold on to them. It also kills any value in developing players if they are forced out not even by being outbid, but by arbitrary values that change year on year

I know you’re talking about weekly teams and not squads, but it’s the same problem, just on a weekly basis.

It’ll keep players that deserve to play, if not start, off the field more and more because the coaches can’t make them all fit

 

[BooKhaki]

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]Dixpat - nzwarriors.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .February 3, 2014
MESSAGES: 2,131
REACTIONS: 4,727[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

Why not go the Polo way and give every player a points value in each position say 1-10 and allow clubs to pay them whatever they choose but the starting team for each week’s match cannot exceed say a total of 102 points.

Players points value would be reassessed each year against a specific set of criteria for that position.

The concept would need some fleshing out but should even teams on a week to week basis

---

That would stop a team putting out their best team each week, and I think that's a truly horrible concept.

 

[Super Freak]

There isn’t a fix.

The reality is, this comp will never be truly even. All of the top clubs are always going to be able to attract star players, especially for less, because there’s a higher chance of success at those clubs and a higher chance of playing rep footy.

You can bring in a draft, but modern footy players are fickle people. They won’t stand for a system that could send them to a club they hate.

 

[Super Freak]

In saying that, the salary cap isn’t really the issue.

One of the issues is there aren’t enough quality coaches and there aren’t enough quality admins in the game. A lot of the clubs are run very poorly.

Look at where the Panthers were before they became the side they did. They were struggling to make the finals each year. Now they are on the verge of a dynasty.

Why? Because they recognised the problems and they fixed the problems, they brought in the right people to do it and their focus became turning the Panthers into a powerhouse.

Now they are reaping the rewards of that work. It took them longer than they planned, but it’s paying off.

 

[NZWarriors.com]

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]BeastMode - nzwarriors.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .March 7, 2015
MESSAGES: 10,182
REACTIONS: 20,301[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]Super Freak - broncoshq.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .January 25, 2014
MESSAGES: 30,584
Reaction Score: 17,685[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

There isn’t a fix.

The reality is, this comp will never be truly even. All of the top clubs are always going to be able to attract star players, especially for less, because there’s a higher chance of success at those clubs and a higher chance of playing rep footy.

---

Can you tell me a professional comp or sport where this isn’t the case?

We do a hell of a lot better than rugby, soccer, basketball when it comes to competitiveness

---

 

[Browny]

If you had a choice of 500k to play for the Storm or 800k for the Tigers, Id take a pay cut to play for the Storm

 

[NZWarriors.com]

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]wizards rage - nzwarriors.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .April 18, 2016
MESSAGES: 6,602
REACTIONS: 17,497[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]

[/st_td_row][st_td]Browny - broncoshq.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]JOINED: .April 8, 2008
MESSAGES: 9,759
Reaction Score: 3,810[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]

---

If you had a choice of 500k to play for the Storm or 800k for the Tigers, Id take a pay cut to play for the Storm

---

Its better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

In situations like that the highest bid value should be the value that goes against the cap wherever the player plays. That’s their market value.

Signing a player for unders because you offer ‘other intangible benefits’ circumvents the money based design of the cap. They ‘other intangible benefits’ actually has a $300k value in your example.

Auction the players value, then they chose a club?

---

Smash em bro