Cool so they'll join the mass ranks of experienced SL players...



That's not the point. The point is that the majority of all the squads in SL will be made up of these players. There's only so many young players and so many star players (particularly as your definition of a star player is someone who has recently played for Australia, New Zealand or England). Within this group of players there will be a massive range of quality and that quality will not be evenly distributed around the clubs, it will be distributed according to willingness to spend on salaries. As this group will make up the core of the squads it will have more of an impact than the handful of star players.

yes, they likely would. In fact i have no doubt they would. But it would mean they would have less of the higher points categories and more of the lower. They would be forced to.

This would mean the smaller clubs would find it easier to attract more the higher points categories and more of the lower

They wouldnt want to pay a shed load of money + 4 points for a squad man. So they simply wouldnt pay them a shed load of money

they would likely have 2nd choice of players. There isnt a system possible where smaller clubs wouldnt likely have 2nd choice. But what it would mean is that smaller clubs would have the 2nd choice of the highest standard of players. Whereas now there are very few top quality players at the smaller clubs

Quote: Barnacle Bill "Perhaps the question should have been "A better way for Leeds?" To which the obvious answer is "Yes". Which I suspect is the reason Smokey is so vociferous in his defence of it, what with Leeds currently in the mix with the "smaller" clubs in the table. It must be quite painful falling from such a high horse. Still, he is conststent if nothing else.'" Ok, Ill admit it, its a system which would only benefit the big clubs, it would mean they could stretch the gap between them and the small clubs. I mean the guy who brought it up is in charge of a club that has loads of money and would be able to spend way more than the cap. They are a huge club and they would be the ones to benefit the most Oh wait......www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -smph.html

Quote: Barnacle Bill "Perhaps the question should have been "A better way for Leeds?" To which the obvious answer is "Yes". Which I suspect is the reason Smokey is so vociferous in his defence of it, what with Leeds currently in the mix with the "smaller" clubs in the table. It must be quite painful falling from such a high horse. Still, he is conststent if nothing else.'" Ok, Ill admit it, its a system which would only benefit the big clubs, it would mean they could stretch the gap between them and the small clubs. I mean the guy who brought it up is in charge of a club that has loads of money and would be able to spend way more than the cap. They are a huge club and they would be the ones to benefit the most Oh wait......www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -smph.html

92% of fans in Australia have seen through this form of cap and want it changing. CEO's of clubs, the players, Board members, people in charge of smaller clubs like cronulla and rich clubs like the roosters. All looking for change

No the point is that each club will have a similar make up. 6-10 stars, 6-10 experienced players, about 10 developed players. If you invest in your youngsters and pick up your handful of stars, then the difference will come through the between 6-10 middle players, where there would be a smaller range of quality. Certainly smaller than there is now and for the foreseeable future

So that's between 84 and 140 'stars'. Players who have recently played for Australia, New Zealand or England. Something doesn't quite add up here.

all 16 clubs were in favour of penalizing the storm

all clubs favour the current cap but are looking at some minor changes

of course it does, there are currently 15 'star' players at leeds (ignoring developed exemptions) 15 at saints, 13 at Wigan, 9 at bradford, 11 at Hull, 14 at wire, 12 at Hudds, thats 89 at just those 7 clubs,

thats a lovely bit of irrelevance.

That simply isnt the case.

Wow, there's quite a range of quality in that group as well. I take it you're going back a few years, throwing in players who had try outs in mid season international knockabouts and from when England was made up of those not good enough be considered for Great Britain? "Stars" indeed. This idea keeps getting worse.

Are you saying that with the points system Leeds would no longer be allowed to field 15 "star players"?

no, not at all, all players have either played a full test for one of the top nations, or represented one of the 2nd tier nations in a World cup

Leeds for instance consists of Webb(NZ), Senior (GB), Hall(GB), Smith(GB), Mcguire(GB), Burrow(GB), Diskin (GB), Sinfield (GB), Eastwood (NZ), Lauitiiti (NZ + Samoa), Buderus (Australia + New South Wales), Peacock (GB), Lueluai (Samoa) Bailey(GB), Jamie Jones Buchanon (GB)

Saints consists of
Wellens (GB), Pryce(GB), Eastmond (GB), Graham(GB), Gardner (GB), Soliola (NZ), Gidley (Australia + NSW) Meli (NZ) Fozzard (GB) Cunningham(GB), Puletua(NZ+Samoa) Wilkin (GB), Roby (GB), Fa'asavalu (GB), Flannery (Queensland)

Warrington consists of

Matt King (aus+NSW) Chris Bridge (GB), Briers (GB + Wales) Myler(GB), Morley(GB), Carvell (GB), Westwood (GB), Anderson (NZ), Anderson (NZ) Solomona (NZ+Samoa) Higham (GB) Clarke(GB), Atkins (GB)

Which of these players are you thinking are only counted because of a mid-season knockabout where the 1st choice didnt get picked?

well they get (and deserve) some exemption for developing their GB players. They would currently have a total of 104 points from a squad of 24, so they would need to drop 4 points and gain a player.

Considering any player the signed would be an minimum of 4 points, they would likely need to drop at the very least 1 of their 6 pointers, and that would be on the basis they also dropped a 4 pointer and promoted 3 youngsters (at 2 points)

I also said you were going back a few years, which you clearly have. When was the last time Briers played for GB? Solomona for New Zealand?

I also thought we were sticking to tier one internationals (Australia, New Zealand and GB -> England) after I pointed out the insanity of including Bob Beswick in your list of star players. You've either got a small group of genuine stars or a large group of massively varying quality, neither is good for your proposal.

I have to admit to being intrigued by your list of stars at Bradford, Hull and Huddersfield.

And?

btw, Briers was included in the British squad for the tri-nations 3 seasons ago, Solomona won the tri nations 4 seasons ago. We are hardly harking back the 50's here

the groups arent that large, and as you can see, there isnt a huge discrepancy in quality. But yes, like all systems ever possibly invented there will be players whose value under a system doesnt match their value to the team, which is why we have coaches and we allow them to build their teams. I would have no sympathy with a team who decided to waste 6 points on Bob Beswick, its not an issue with the system, its just poor recruitment, no club would be forced to sign him



Hudds,
Hodgeson (NSW) Hodgeson (GB) Lohlesi(NZ) Whaturia(NZ),Crabtree(GB), Gilmour(GB) Fa'alogo(NZ), Wild(GB) Faiumu(NZ), Drew(city)(i made an error here, i counted Aspinwall, who was included in the trinations but didnt play, Robinson who only played in a friendly)

Bradford
Reardon(GB),Kearney(county), Orford(City) Lynch(GB) Menzies (Aus + NSW), Langley(GB), Platt(ireland) Sykes(GB)Le'strange(France)

Hull,
Calderwood(GB), Briscoe(GB), Horne(GB), Yeaman(GB),Long(GB), Berrigan (aus +Queensland), O'Meley(aus+NSW), Fitzgibbon (aus+NSW), Lauaki(NZ+Samoa), Manu (tonga) Moa(tonga) Cusack (country)