www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -u04i.html To me this seems a very well thought out idea, and its principle is something i have been in favour of for a long time, that is look at the squad make up, rather than pure monetary value to even the league and keep our best players

www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -u04i.html To me this seems a very well thought out idea, and its principle is something i have been in favour of for a long time, that is look at the squad make up, rather than pure monetary value to even the league and keep our best players

Who dishes out the points for the ratings?

Edit: Just read the whole article and answered my own question.

Carry on

Fledgling clubs would struggle wouldn't they? New clubs with fresh licenses would have no option but to sign players from other clubs. They'd rack up 100 points pretty quickly.

I thought it was a rational well thought out idea, that alone makes it a non starter in the UK. But seriously for the NRL it would work. There was another article in the same paper from Phil Gould stating that the salary cap as initialy mooted was to keep clubs solvent not even out the competition. We in the UK must decide do we want hold back clubs who can spend above the amounts of the cap? .My opinion at the moment likes the points idea as it would allow the better off clubs to attract & keep class players while letting smaller clubs like mine keep its home produced lads (if we manage to do it) the only cap needed is to ensure clubs cannot spend over their income or borrow money they cannot pay back. As with all new ideas I may well have got it wrong & there may be glaring problems but its worth considering.

yeah, i suppose we would look at dispensations for them, for instance giving them 130 points, reduced by 5 per year so that in 2 franchise periods they are level.

Also i would like to see it linked in with the quota, so that while a rep player would cost 6 points, a player from the NRL would cost 8 points, and a player from the NRL who didnt play in 60% of their teams games the previous year would cost 10 points

The points system could still be abused.

Lets say that the England coach had strong alegiances to a particular club, and if a player earns an international call up he gets a higher points rating.

We might then see, some players promoted early to disadvantage a rival club, or alternatively other players held back from international competition to help the favoured club.

The cap is needed for two reasons too encourage competition and to stop and salry race to bankrupty.

Footballs premiership is a fine example of the free market in operation. Portsmouth and Hull are as good as financially ruined. Meanwhile the premiership is bland competition where the winners are known before the season started. It has become a sport were the cheque bookrules, rather than good coaching and player development.

i think thats a fairly paranoid assumption.

And one that can also be abused under this system, most players have international recognition bonus' written into their contract, we dont see the same happening with SC now.

Also if you really were that scared about it put a cap on the amount of points a club can accumulate through England/GB recognition. If a club brought through 10 players of GB quality i would be happy to see them rewarded for doing so

At first glance it seems reasonable but might it lead to a situation where players offered a representative position are "bribed" by their clubs not to take it? It could be damaging to the international game, maybe?

I’ve never been a fan of the salary cap, and I’ve always thought it to be unworkable. I agree with the principle and aims of its introduction but, if abused by some clubs, it is potentially worse than having a free market, Premiership football system in place.

Damian Irvine’s system, on the face of it, seems a little more open and unfudgeable. If the points system is both rigorous and fair, we can all actually monitor the system ourselves.

There are areas that would need working out, but Damian Irvine’s idea has got to be worth a shot.

.....but he's right about the wendyball 'premiership'. Crazy free-for-alls will end up like this all the quicker in a game like RL where there is a lot less money and far fewer bored billionaires ready to buy some glory with their spare cash.

why would they? Why would a club chairman spend a huge amount more money on a player other clubs just wouldnt want to spend the money on?

Chairmen arent stupid, you dont get to be rich by paying out money you dont need to. With the points system you couldnt get a team full of superstars so why would you bother paying average players more money just because there isnt a rule to say you cant?

what the points system would mean is that Leeds could have offered Lee Smith more money to stay at leeds (which is clearly a good thing, stopping us losing young talent to union) but Warrington couldnt try to buy success by offering more than Leeds (because Smith would count more on Warringtons cap than Leeds)

Its a very very paranoid mindset that would think this would result in huge amounts more money going to players, because it wouldnt

the Wendyball 'premiership' is at least as competitive, if not more so than Super League

The problem with the point's system, in the UK at least, is that virtually no club in SL are making a profit. The cap itself was more away to stop the lower clubs spending themselves out of business rather than to level out the field. If you remove the financial restriction you may cause the game more harm than good.

should clubs who cant be trusted not to spend more than they have, have a place in a franchised super league? especially when they dont need to over spend to put out a competitive squad as the point system would mean clubs couldnt hoard players and there would always be players of sufficient quality that couldnt find a place elsewhere