In the end it's the NRL who have cheated the Storm!

[hunters]

I think that just about everyone in the game agrees that the cap is flawed but this does not give license to the Storm, or any club, to work outside of it. What the Storm has done is a different issue to the debate about the effecctiveness of the cap.

If and when the salary cap is overhauled, it should be done after this current issue has settled down. We can't afford to rebuild the system based on a heap of emotional, knee jerk responses

 

[gronkathon]

Again this is a valid argument...but can you see how the flaws in the current cap arrangements have made long term development almost impossible.

There's no easy answer I know but we do need one for the sake of the game. Ask youself how you would feel if your team developed key players from their teenage years, stuck by the rules and had to let them go.

To me this doesn't make sense.

Remember...These players were not stars before they played with Melbourne.

PS: fopr those of you who choose to use insults, it helps no-one.

I agree that the cap needs revision. There is no doubt of that.

A system where marquee players (limited to 2 per club IMO) are allowed increased levels of third party deals. In fact I would go so far as to suggest the NRL could actually help negotiate deals and attract sponsors. To do this however a marquee player needs to be more than just a Greg Inglis who is very good on the field. It needs a Slater of a Marshall type to qualify. A player who benefits their side on the field but is also of benefit to the game off the field. Players who do not have this second characteristic can be entitled to third party deals but these are to be capped. Top line marquee players must sign for a club for a minimum 3 years to secure this support

We need to be careful how we raise any basic cap level so as that the NRL grant raises with it. Again earlier in the week I noted the disparity of AFL teams this year. There are at least four teams you know are guaranteed a belting every week and we do not want that situation to occur in the NRL as it is bad for business, bad for crowds etc etc.

I also think the process of how to manage cap reform should not be nutted out until after this mess in Melbourne has run it's course. Possibly have preliminary cap restructuring discussions as the precursor meetings to the independant commissions setup

 

[taxidriver]

how is paying massive amounts for the most talented footballers in the country now deemed "development"?

isn't it recruitment of the hard work of others?

 

[Crusher]

I agree that the cap needs revision. There is no doubt of that.

A system where marquee players (limited to 2 per club IMO) are allowed increased levels of third party deals. In fact I would go so far as to suggest the NRL could actually help negotiate deals and attract sponsors. To do this however a marquee player needs to be more than just a Greg Inglis who is very good on the field. It needs a Slater of a Marshall type to qualify. A player who benefits their side on the field but is also of benefit to the game off the field. Players who do not have this second characteristic can be entitled to third party deals but these are to be capped. Top line marquee players must sign for a club for a minimum 3 years to secure this support

We need to be careful how we raise any basic cap level so as that the NRL grant raises with it. Again earlier in the week I noted the disparity of AFL teams this year. There are at least four teams you know are guaranteed a belting every week and we do not want that situation to occur in the NRL as it is bad for business, bad for crowds etc etc.

I also think the process of how to manage cap reform should not be nutted out until after this mess in Melbourne has run it's course. Possibly have preliminary cap restructuring discussions as the precursor meetings to the independant commissions setup

This type of thinking IMO is spot on. Cricket has contracts for elite groups so why not the NRL. Having an equakl cap FOR TEAMS is faior as long as it is backed up by marquis payments. Identifying what maquis actually means is the key.

 

[cleary89]

diagf op

 

[Crusher]

I think that just about everyone in the game agrees that the cap is flawed but this does not give license to the Storm, or any club, to work outside of it. What the Storm has done is a different issue to the debate about the effecctiveness of the cap.

If and when the salary cap is overhauled, it should be done after this current issue has settled down. We can't afford to rebuild the system based on a heap of emotional, knee jerk responses

Again your points are valid but my argument is that rightly or wrongly, the cap created an environment for the Storm issue to eventuate. We saw it with the bulldogs, and we've seen it to a lesser extent with the Warriors.

If the system wer perfect this whole group of threads wouldn't be here, hence it is the system that is at fault as well as the individuals who cheated it.

Li

 

[hunters]

Not sure it wouldn't eventuate. Even if you raised the cap to $6M and said you can throw another $1M at your marquee players what would stop a club spending $9M under the table?

I can't imagine any set of rules that by themselves would not allow any cheating. The system will still need to be backed up with auditing and cross checcking the way it is now.

 

[Crusher]

Not sure it wouldn't eventuate. Even if you raised the cap to $6M and said you can throw another $1M at your marquee players what would stop a club spending $9M under the table?

I can't imagine any set of rules that by themselves would not allow any cheating. The system will still need to be backed up with auditing and cross checcking the way it is now.

Thats why the system implemented needs to be so transparent and well monitored that abuse would be impossible. Coming up with one may need the brilliant minds of people other than those in the NRL.

 

[Doomednow]

Again this is a valid argument...but can you see how the flaws in the current cap arrangements have made long term development almost impossible.

There's no easy answer I know but we do need one for the sake of the game. Ask youself how you would feel if your team developed key players from their teenage years, stuck by the rules and had to let them go.

To me this doesn't make sense.

Remember...These players were not stars before they played with Melbourne.

PS: fopr those of you who choose to use insults, it helps no-one.

Yes it sucks that if you develop talent you will eventually have to let it go. No one disputes that. But fact is that is how everyone else was operating because its the rules. Melbourne does not get a special exemption whilst everyone else plays by the rules. They can't expect to cry "unfair!" when everyone else is having to let go of their talent whilst they cry about not being able to keep theirs. Until the rules change thats the way it is.

Storm deserve their penalty.

 

[hunters]

Coming up with one may need the brilliant minds of people other than those in the NRL.

They only have to come in here and ask

 

[Crusher]

They only have to come in here and ask

As funny as that sounds, everyones opinion does count.

I have, let's say a bit of an insiders view on all of this. If we keep passion and hatred out of the argument what is clear is that:

1. The NRL have been presented with several cap style options even befiore the bulldogs saga
2. The current salary cap was the 'easiest' option but IMO not the best by far.
3. The future implications of the current salary cap (inclduing what has happened with the Warriors, Bulldogs and Storm) were always a possibility and the NRL can not hide from knowing this.
4. The option of a team salary cap, player points system including loyalty concessions and NRL elite contracts was the best option by far. This has never been implemented IMO because it all sounds too hard.

Unfortunately, sometimes we need to implement the hard things in order to untimately make things easy.

 

[ME SO HORNBY!]

Is that you Phil Gould?

 

[Crusher]

Is that you Phil Gould?

No but I do know him. Lets leave it at that.

Love him or hate him he is passionate about his beliefs. I dont agree with all of them though!

 

[mickdo]

Like it or not, we need a cap to both balance the competition and stop clubs going broke... there's just no debate on this point. Now until the player's association agrees to allow the NRL to audit the players bank accounts and tax returns (as the AFL does), the NRL cannot be held responsible for the systematic and deceptive rorting of the cap. It wouldn't matter whether the cap was $4m or $6m or more, the NRL simply does not have the powers to go in and check what goes into the player's pockets. Blame the players, not the NRL.

 

[Crusher]

Like it or not, we need a cap to both balance the competition and stop clubs going broke... there's just no debate on this point. Now until the player's association agrees to allow the NRL to audit the players bank accounts and tax returns (as the AFL does), the NRL cannot be held responsible for the systematic and deceptive rorting of the cap. It wouldn't matter whether the cap was $4m or $6m or more, the NRL simply does not have the powers to go in and check what goes into the player's pockets. Blame the players, not the NRL.

yes you have a strong point but any salary cap alone, whether audited or not is open to some abuse.

Thats why the option of team salary cap, player points sysrem with loyalty concessions + NRL elite player payments makes sense. Managed correctly there would be no need to abuse the syetem as players get what they're worth, teams are limited on the number of top players they can have (unless they have been loyal or developed by them) and the NRlLtakes care of the rest just like the ACB.

I'm not saying this doesn't need lots of work and input but we have time to get it right by next season if the NRL would commit to it. I've seen the scheme in full detail and everyone I know both in media and at club level know it makes sense and stops the abuse.

 

[mickdo]

I've seen the scheme in full detail and everyone I know both in media and at club level know it makes sense and stops the abuse.

What the?

 

[Crusher]

Here’s the scheme summary in it’s most basic form for those of you that are interested.

• Each player in the NRL is graded by a transparent and comprehensive points system determined by an external body in conjunction with the NRL.taking into account everything from representative honours, value to the game, potential and so on.
• From this the NRL determines their Marquis player list.
• Each team is allocated the same number of available player points.
• Point discounts are taken into account for long term service at a particular club kicking in at 4 years. As well as their retention value to the game amongst other things. This does not affect a players nett worth. For example, Cameron Smith may have a value 25 points which places him at the top of the marquis list. After four years at one club that club will receive points discounts. Therefore in his fourth year he may only be counted as 22 points for Melbourne and so on. For any other club his rating would be 25 points. Darren Lockyer may also be rated as highly as Cameron Smith however at the Broncos due to long term loyalty he may only count as 10 points.
• Player ratings will determine how much money the NRL pays that player over and above his club contract. (Marquis Players – Top 50)
• There is no team salary cap however the points system only allows you to purchase a certain number of top graded players. Therefore, how much money a team has will not determine who they keep but instead it is determined by how many points they have accrued. For example, if South Sydney nurtured a young talent who eventually became a Marquis, they would receive points concessions to keep him not available at any other club and the NRL would top up his payments also. Other clubs can buy him but it will cost them more points which makes keeping them under the points cap more difficult..

This is only a brief snapshot.

It’s not an easy system but it covers off most of the variables including palyer payments and loyalty.

 

[taxidriver]

so are you going to source where you cut and paste this and the opening post from?

 

[Crusher]

so are you going to source where you cut and paste this and the opening post from?

The opening post is mine. The souirce of the scheme above I won't disclose.

 

[mickdo]

[*]Each player in the NRL is graded by a transparent and comprehensive points system determined by an external body in conjunction with the NRL.taking into account everything from representative honours, value to the game, potential and so on.

Transparent my ass. It will just lead to accusations of incorrect gradings and become the new scapegoat of a 'new' flawed system.

[*]From this the NRL determines their Marquis player list.

Again, totally opinion based and not determined by the open market. You've seen the number of slanging matches by posters in here over who should be in the top 50 players. It would be a mess.

[*]Each team is allocated the same number of available player points.

Except the Storm who will get bonus points for being 'successful' :lol:

[*]Point discounts are taken into account for long term service at a particular club kicking in at 4 years. As well as their retention value to the game amongst other things. This does not affect a players nett worth. For example, Cameron Smith may have a value 25 points which places him at the top of the marquis list. After four years at one club that club will receive points discounts. Therefore in his fourth year he may only be counted as 22 points for Melbourne and so on. For any other club his rating would be 25 points. Darren Lockyer may also be rated as highly as Cameron Smith however at the Broncos due to long term loyalty he may only count as 10 points.

If this does not determine how much a player is paid, you are going to get a lot of envy from players who are highly ranked points wise but their club can't afford to pay them as much as the richer clubs. Poorer clubs will still find it hard to get good players, and many will still go to the UK and Rugby.

[*]There is no team salary cap however the points system only allows you to purchase a certain number of top graded players. Therefore, how much money a team has will not determine who they keep but instead it is determined by how many points they have accrued. For example, if South Sydney nurtured a young talent who eventually became a Marquis, they would receive points concessions to keep him not available at any other club and the NRL would top up his payments also. Other clubs can buy him but it will cost them more points which makes keeping them under the points cap more difficult..

As I said you will still have good players who will leave the game because they get slapped with a 'star rating' but their club can't afford to pay them any more, and other clubs can;t afford to recruit them because their points are too high. Same old problem.