Quote MHL="MHL"because the nrc cup would turn up 1/3+ of the normal season? so you only get your full cap for 2/3 of the year if you don't change it, but to change it you would need two contracts. this then opens up silly situation of having a league squad, and a different nrc squad. so you could have 'player A' plays for roosters in the league, but then plays for wests in the nrc.'"
You still haven't explained why you'd need two contracts. Just because there is another competition doesn't mean you need another contract for it. No player would be ineligible to play in this competition UNLESS they were selected for international duty, which the governing body would have to give incentives to clubs to release their players (i.e. compensation of wages and credit to the salary cap to cover their temporary removal from the squad). I don't understand why you think a second contract would be needed for a second competition.
Quote MHL="MHL"you wouldn't be able to just have extra cap space, for one it gives some teams an advantage over others, and with the test squad changing regularly how are you going to manage this extra money. baring in mind that the club would need to a lot of time to find a player to take up the nrc squad space, by which time the international squad will no doubt have changed.'"
Being given extra space in the cap would even out the disadvantage of losing your best players to international duty. If anything, the teams with international players would be at more of a disadvantage than an advantage, but they'd have the advantage of greater squad depth.
You wouldn't be able to manage it on a rolling basis because of what you have said. But you could credit them for the next season, where there is every chance a similar number of internationals will be picked from the same club (unless their is some kind of mass exodus), and so they will already have a decent squad depth from recruitment in the close-season. Emphasis on player development would be more vital here, because younger players are cheaper, and would definitely be needed when their are internationals on.
Quote MHL="MHL"its a restriction of trade because you are stopping a club player competing in a club competition. the only real way round it would for the international players also be paid for the nrc squad (that will make team mates happy)
(sidenote: anyone know how they have got around restriction of trade issues with the banning club games if refuse to play state of origin? as the players are paid whether they play games or not, i'm sure that helps get part way round it, but what about win bonuses?)'"
It is only a restriction of trade of it is forced on clubs. There needs to be an agreement between the RFL/ARL/NZRL and the clubs where a compromise can be made for the use of international players on a more regular basis. There is an international on at the same time as a SL round next month. Is that a restriction of trade also?
I don't understand why you think that international players would have to be paid for NRC games if he is being compensated by the governing body? And why his team mates would be unhappy if he is getting paid for playing games for his country? It's not like he's sat at home doing nothing.
I'm sure they are getting paid win bonuses, etc. when playing representative rugby, which is why they'd be just as happy to play for them. No doubt, their value will also go up as a result of this representation.
Quote MHL="MHL""emphasis on squad-depth" - do you think there is any nrl club who are much under the cap? do you think they are any clubs paying over the top wages?
since the answer is no to both of these, where is the space going to come from? bigger cap (which the smart clubs[least the ones with less international players will use massively to their advantage)or are we back to the two squads/contracts?'"
We never were on two squads/contracts. Only you were, which I still don't fully understand why!
I have already explained how bigger squad depth could be achieved. Crediting clubs' SCs for the use of their internationals. This extra money would be used to pay for a larger squad. Teams with less/no internationals will be credited less/nothing and so would not be able to take advantage as much. They wouldn't need to either, because they wouldn't be losing their star players.
Quote MHL="MHL"as for the more internationals, yes it would be great if we have an even playing field (or at least a bigger 'good' pool) but realislicty we have
the aussie - top team
nz - can stand up to aus in series, seem appalling in one off games
england - normally fairly close, and can win games in the pool rounds. when it steps up to knock out rounds, we just don't have another level
png - still along way off
fiji - as above
samoa - as above
tonga - as above
the media will just laugh at us even more then they do now.'"
Without more games, we will barely ever see if nations improve. And there will be no emphasis on them improving because they'll never be involved.
Quote MHL="MHL"oh and the reason internationals get more press is because they're seen as special events, do you think they'll still be special events if there taking up 1/3+ of the season'"
Yes. Seems to do alright in union, football, cricket, etc.
Quote MHL="MHL"what we need to be looking at is developing the club game in new areas/countries, not trying to massively change a working formula'"
It isn't a case of doing one at the expense of the other. Why can't we improve the international game AND the club game?
Internationals get us the most coverage. If we can improve that considerably, it would be easier to sell the game to new areas.
