What the NRL needs to do

[Eion]

What about it didn't make sense?

Everything I said in it was factually accurate and pretty straight forward...



lol

Spell checking people now... I'm sorry that I didn't have time to proofread that post for you...

BTW, WADA couldn't be bothered with an NRL club or for that matter an AFL club cause they are the World Anti-Doping Agency whose main focus is on things that impact world sport, and RL and the AFL's impact on world sport is minimal at best, at worst it's totally negligible, where as Russia and Russian athletes impact (particularly the Russian Olympic team's) is huge, in the case of Russia they were also under huge pressure from multiple nations and international organisations to put sanctions on them for entirely political reasons, as I'm sure you can see this isn't the case with either an NRL club or an AFL club.

ASADA also weren't desperate to get the "scalp" after the "blackest day" conference, they were desperate to get out of the shit that Labours political stunt had dropped them into as quickly as possible, and by the time that things with Cronulla had come to a head they already knew they had the scalps of Essendon (who got of lightly as well) and Earl in the bag...

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that WADA signed off on the sharks sanctions because the players raised a no significant fault defence which was accepted. They also accepted the impact an inexcusable delay had in investigating the matter.

You keep banging on about a 4 year ban and clearly have no idea about the maximum ban facing the players at the time.

 

[Travitoh]

Great point. I don't think Melbourne had any great "junior development plan" in the run-up to the Storm's debut season, yet they've managed to carve out a good niche for themselves in the Melbourne sporting market by nailing some early success (1999), followed up by a decent - albeit illegally assembled - dynasty.

There's no reason why Adelaide can't have the same sort of early success, so long as the set-up is right from day 1. I don't mean breaking the cap (Melbourne didn't need to do that in '99), but getting some good talent down there and a quality coach goes a long way.

Expansion teams don't have to be horrible for years before they hit their straps, just look at the Vegas team in NHL Ice Hockey for another example.

If an expansion team is to be successful then there will need to be some form of expansion draft. In the NRL i would suggest something like all clubs can protect 15 contracted players and the expansion team can then approach one from each club.
I would also hope the NRL assist the new club in bringing back a player that has hopped to another code for face value.
That will give the team 17 players off the bat before any deals between an existing club and expansion.
The remaining spots are filled with uncontracted players like every other club.

It will still be difficult for upstart clubs to put together strong rosters but they should at least be competitive.

 

[taipan]

If an expansion team is to be successful then there will need to be some form of expansion draft. In the NRL i would suggest something like all clubs can protect 15 contracted players and the expansion team can then approach one from each club.
I would also hope the NRL assist the new club in bringing back a player that has hopped to another code for face value.
That will give the team 17 players off the bat before any deals between an existing club and expansion.
The remaining spots are filled with uncontracted players like every other club.

It will still be difficult for upstart clubs to put together strong rosters but they should at least be competitive.

Trouble is with drafts in the NRL,that's been tried in the ARL comp ,the player protested.The court ruled it was restraint of trade.
A financial incentive over the salary cap for new clubs,IMO is the answer .
IOW a new Adelaide club has an additional $500,00-$750,000 on top of it's cap, to ensure they get a number of quality players, not just tradesmen type ones.If needs be grab them from union or fumblebumble,

 

[Travitoh]

Trouble is with drafts in the NRL,that's been tried in the ARL comp ,the player protested.The court ruled it was restraint of trade.
A financial incentive over the salary cap for new clubs,IMO is the answer .
IOW a new Adelaide club has an additional $500,00-$750,000 on top of it's cap, to ensure they get a number of quality players, not just tradesmen type ones.I needs be grab them from union or fumblebumble,

I agree that drafting isn't an answer. What I'm proposing is that players are made available to the expansion clubs as if they were out of contract. The player still has to agree to terms (unlike an expansion draft in the US).
I'll use Melbourne's team list from Tuesday as an example - Brodie Croft is outside of the top 15 contracted players (jersey 19). Now he may have two years to run on his contract but Perth are free to approach him and offer him a contract as their starting 7. Should he agree to terms then that is their pick from Melbourne.

 

[taipan]

I agree that drafting isn't an answer. What I'm proposing is that players are made available to the expansion clubs as if they were out of contract. The player still has to agree to terms (unlike an expansion draft in the US).
I'll use Melbourne's team list from Tuesday as an example - Brodie Croft is outside of the top 15 contracted players (jersey 19). Now he may have two years to run on his contract but Perth are free to approach him and offer him a contract as their starting 7. Should he agree to terms then that is their pick from Melbourne.

Yeah sounds fine to me.Brodie Croft needs more experience ,there is undoubted class there waiting to be exploited.Think he lacks confidence ATM.
There are players in lower tiers, in NZ,PNG and the islands in addition,so 18 teams player wise should not be a problem ,for filling.

 

[Travitoh]

Yeah sounds fine to me.Brodie Croft needs more experience ,there is undoubted class there waiting to be exploited.Think he lacks confidence ATM.
There are players in lower tiers, in NZ,PNG and the islands in addition,so 18 teams player wise should not be a problem ,for filling.

Early on in the expansion period roster depth may be a bit stretched but given the opportunity, there will be second teir players that step up to fill the void.
I feel you only need to look at players like Damien Cook, Cody Walker and Rhyse Martin to see what players can do when given an opportunity at the top level.
Add a handful of players from the ESL and there is plenty of talent to fill an 18 team comp.

 

[The Great Dane]

If an expansion team is to be successful then there will need to be some form of expansion draft. In the NRL i would suggest something like all clubs can protect 15 contracted players and the expansion team can then approach one from each club.
I would also hope the NRL assist the new club in bringing back a player that has hopped to another code for face value.
That will give the team 17 players off the bat before any deals between an existing club and expansion.
The remaining spots are filled with uncontracted players like every other club.

It will still be difficult for upstart clubs to put together strong rosters but they should at least be competitive.

There's no way that'd work cause every team will just offer up their two worst players so you'll just end up with a team of fringe first graders and backup players...

It's also totally unnecessary, there's plenty of talent out there looking for a good shot that'd jump at the chance to walk into a starting squad, and with good management, with a good plan, and a bit of time to prepare there's no reason why a bid team couldn't sign a big star or two to build the rest of their team around.

 

[The Great Dane]

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that WADA signed off on the sharks sanctions because the players raised a no significant fault defence which was accepted.

Strict Liability!
Once you learn what strict liability is and how it is interpenetrated in the context of anti-doping you'll realise that everything you are saying and that you believe to be true is either a half truth or outright BS that's been fed to you by dodgy journalists and people trying to spin the story, well you'll realise that if you're an honest actor that is...

And WADA didn't "sign off" on it, they don't have to, they just didn't contest the penalties after they reviewed the case, which they do when they feel that the "penalty" doesn't fit the crime and is making a mockery of the rules. They didn't contest in this case cause they had much, much bigger fish to fry, and from their point of view it'd be a waste of time and resources.

They also accepted the impact an inexcusable delay had in investigating the matter.

An "inexcusable" delay that only happened cause of Labour going public with the accusation before the investigation had even really begun, in an attempt to distract the public from the political atmosphere of the time, which forced ASADA to rush the investigation and frankly cut corners in the investigation to attempt to save face...

That fact and some good decision making at the NRL basically got them off scot-free.

BTW from memory the Sharks players weren't sidelined while the investigation took place anyway...

You keep banging on about a 4 year ban and clearly have no idea about the maximum ban facing the players at the time.

I keep "banging on" about a 4 year ban cause that is basically the standard ban that can be expected for what they did, except in the case of extraordinary circumstances (of which there were none in this case).

Pretty much every other athlete that has been caught doing what they did got that penalty or something similar to it, the only significant reason that the Sharks (and for that matter Essendon) didn't is cause of political interference.

And that's the final thing I'll say on this matter cause you obviously don't know anything about the subject outside of dodgy shit that came out of the media back when this was happening that confirmed your bias, so really there's no point cause effectively all I'm doing is repeating myself to person who doesn't want to listen anyway...

 

[greenBV4]

IF there was going to be some kind of help for a new team player wise, they could be given a slightly larger cap for a year to help lure some bigger names, after the first year though those players would most likely then have to take a pay cut or leave - but if it helps them be successful in their first season and helps cement the new club it could be worth it

 

[Travitoh]

There's no way that'd work cause every team will just offer up their two worst players so you'll just end up with a team of fringe first graders and backup players...

It's also totally unnecessary, there's plenty of talent out there looking for a good shot that'd jump at the chance to walk into a starting squad, and with good management, with a good plan, and a bit of time to prepare there's no reason why a bid team couldn't sign a big star or two to build the rest of their team around.

Not necessarily. Clubs could use it as an opportunity to offload bad contracts. Kieran Foran at Canterbury for example could be left out of the 15 protected players in the hope that the expansion team sign him.

I agree that there is second tier talent but to be competitive there will most likely need to be some first grade experience amongst the squad.

I'm not proposing this as perfect but an idea to get a club started. Getting star players to move interstate to join a start up club would cost huge overs and the last thing that you would want is a cap mess at the new club. I also don't believe in salary cap concessions, though i wouldn't be against the NRL topping up a contract if it was to get a Semi Radradra back to rugby league.

 

[The Great Dane]

Not necessarily. Clubs could use it as an opportunity to offload bad contracts. Kieran Foran at Canterbury for example could be left out of the 15 protected players in the hope that the expansion team sign him.

Like I said they'd just chuck up fringe first graders lol...

But even then a player in that situation isn't going to move unless the deal offered by the expansion team is at least equal to their current deal, so basically any expansion club that takes them on is effectively being saddled with a crappy deal that'll negatively effect their cap.

I agree that there is second tier talent but to be competitive there will most likely need to be some first grade experience amongst the squad.

I'm not proposing this as perfect but an idea to get a club started. Getting star players to move interstate to join a start up club would cost huge overs and the last thing that you would want is a cap mess at the new club. I also don't believe in salary cap concessions, though i wouldn't be against the NRL topping up a contract if it was to get a Semi Radradra back to rugby league.

Melbourne had no trouble convincing the likes of Lazarus, hell the Raiders had no trouble in the early days either...

Seriously I don't see the problem, there're plenty of guys willing to move interstate (or internationally) in pursuit of the money, or the experience, or for the best opportunity/career move, or even just cause they can, and there's plenty of good talent running around looking for an opportunity in the NRL (including first grade players), as long as the club has people in charge with their heads screwed on then there shouldn't be a problem.

Besides the only clubs paying huge overs are the ones that don't have the capacity to draw huge amounts of money in third parties, which realistically is a flaw in the rules not the club, or the ones that are poorly managed. I'd imagine teams from Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, etc, shouldn't have to much trouble with attracting third parties.

Really this is a non-issue, just let the open market take it's course.

 

[Eion]

Strict Liability!
Once you learn what strict liability is and how it is interpenetrated in the context of anti-doping you'll realise that everything you are saying and that you believe to be true is either a half truth or outright BS that's been fed to you by dodgy journalists and people trying to spin the story, well you'll realise that if you're an honest actor that is...

And WADA didn't "sign off" on it, they don't have to, they just didn't contest the penalties after they reviewed the case, which they do when they feel that the "penalty" doesn't fit the crime and is making a mockery of the rules. They didn't contest in this case cause they had much, much bigger fish to fry, and from their point of view it'd be a waste of time and resources.



An "inexcusable" delay that only happened cause of Labour going public with the accusation before the investigation had even really begun, in an attempt to distract the public from the political atmosphere of the time, which forced ASADA to rush the investigation and frankly cut corners in the investigation to attempt to save face...

That fact and some good decision making at the NRL basically got them off scot-free.

BTW from memory the Sharks players weren't sidelined while the investigation took place anyway...



I keep "banging on" about a 4 year ban cause that is basically the standard ban that can be expected for what they did, except in the case of extraordinary circumstances (of which there were none in this case).

Pretty much every other athlete that has been caught doing what they did got that penalty or something similar to it, the only significant reason that the Sharks (and for that matter Essendon) didn't is cause of political interference.

And that's the final thing I'll say on this matter cause you obviously don't know anything about the subject outside of dodgy shit that came out of the media back when this was happening that confirmed your bias, so really there's no point cause effectively all I'm doing is repeating myself to person who doesn't want to listen anyway...

What are you screaming about you lunatic?

The MAXIMUM ban for the offences was 2 years. I’ll say it again. 2 years. WTF are you talking about 4 years for?

And you are just flat out wrong about WADA as well...pretending they weren’t interested. This was high profile everywhere and the truth is they were very interested. If it wasn’t so high profile charges would never have been brought on such a threadbare case. The penalties were reduced because ASADA was terrified of losing a case that went to court.

The facts are the facts and this thing was put through the bureaucratic wringer for YEARS! You think the ADADA/WADA forgot to apply a 4 year penalty? You can ignore this all you like, but there was a ‘no significant fault’ finding and a reduction from the 2 years as a result. They did this because they accepted the players version of not intending to take anything ‘illegal’...and could never actually prove that they did. And you know what happens with a finding like that? Punishments get reduced. Which is what happened in reality....as opposed to what you think should have happened in your twisted mind.

 

[Perth Red]

IF there was going to be some kind of help for a new team player wise, they could be given a slightly larger cap for a year to help lure some bigger names, after the first year though those players would most likely then have to take a pay cut or leave - but if it helps them be successful in their first season and helps cement the new club it could be worth it

It’d be good to see three year extra cap allowance to support relocation, signing of players from outside nrl etc but won’t happen, nrl is all about equality, even if it’s to it’s own detriment.

 

[Travitoh]

It’d be good to see three year extra cap allowance to support relocation, signing of players from outside nrl etc but won’t happen, nrl is all about equality, even if it’s to it’s own detriment.

I disagree with cap allowances, though perhaps the NRL could assist and top up contracts that they deem beneficial without being advantageous.
Giving a team extra allowances leaves an opportunity to exploit.

 

[Perth Red]

Giving a team extra allowances leaves an opportunity to exploit.

How is that any different to the current tpa situation which clearly benefits some clubs over others?