So Called Salary Sombrero

[PeeGee]

That’s because they are the NRL’s project to try and expand into AFL territory. If commentators speak against them they’ll get sacked. Bigger parties at play with that one...

Actually on that note, it seems NRL commentators, particularly on 9 have been gagged. They a so non-opinionated that they are boring. Anyone notice Gould and how impartial he is about sides and refereeing. He definitely has a gag clause in his contract.

Has anyone heard about or read anything from Gould and his opinion on the Pearce / Roosters fiasco. Not me that's for sure.

[dice]

Dice, I might have this wrong but I think the salary cap is supposed to prevent clubs spending more than they can afford and going broke. It was intended to be used in conjunction with a draft - the draft being the mechanism to create a more even distribution of talent. I think many get the two issues confused when discussing the cap.

I personally think the draft is needed and that the cap should be a percentage of each club's income - if set at the right level that would prevent clubs going broke. But not limiting the dollar number a player can earn might be the carrot to get the RLPA on board with a draft. Sure, more successful clubs can spend more but isn't that the natural state of affairs anyway?

Any sense in that do you reckon?

A draft has already been thrown out by the courts as a restraint of trade. To bring it back you would have to get all players to agree to it and I doubt that would ever happen again. Consider that Cronk wanted to play for a premiership contender on weekends, and bang Tara Rushton on weekdays. Imagine a draft system trying to force him to play for a weaker club in another city.

The advantage of the points/rating system I mention are:
1) Transparency. There is no advantage to be gained in misrepresenting a player's earnings.
2) Players are still free to play for whichever team they want.
3) Players are free to earn as much as they can get. They currently cannot do this legally.
4) Poorer teams are not necessarily disadvantaged. The may not be able to afford $2m/season for a Thurston but they still field a similarly rated team within their budget.

[Intercept]

A draft has already been thrown out by the courts as a restraint of trade. To bring it back you would have to get all players to agree to it and I doubt that would ever happen again. Consider that Cronk wanted to play for a premiership contender on weekends, and bang Tara Rushton on weekdays. Imagine a draft system trying to force him to play for a weaker club in another city.

The advantage of the points/rating system I mention are:
1) Transparency. There is no advantage to be gained in misrepresenting a player's earnings.
2) Players are still free to play for whichever team they want.
3) Players are free to earn as much as they can get. They currently cannot do this legally.
4) Poorer teams are not necessarily disadvantaged. The may not be able to afford $2m/season for a Thurston but they still field a similarly rated team within their budget.

Yeah, I see what you are saying. If you could come up with a points system that makes sense, that takes care of talent distribution. It might force a few early retirements though, unless the system discounts the points the older a player gets.

On the cap - if clubs go broke through over-spending, that's a commercial disaster for the NRL. How would you deal with that?

Anyone reckon they've got all the answers?

[SupermanSupportsEasts4Eva]

Yeah, I see what you are saying. If you could come up with a points system that makes sense, that takes care of talent distribution. It might force a few early retirements though, unless the system discounts the points the older a player gets.

On the cap - if clubs go broke through over-spending, that's a commercial disaster for the NRL. How would you deal with that?

Anyone reckon they've got all the answers?

I like the idea. But want happens if a young un-tested player signs a multi year contract under a certain rating. And then early into his contract his value goes up. How would that effect the team's overall rating?

An example of this would be both young wingers from Melbourne. Both had great seasons and arguably their market value went up as the season went on. Another example would be SST.

[dice]

I like the idea. But want happens if a young un-tested player signs a multi year contract under a certain rating. And then early into his contract his value goes up. How would that effect the team's overall rating?

An example of this would be both young wingers from Melbourne. Both had great seasons and arguably their market value went up as the season went on. Another example would be SST.

Fair point. IMO the players would definitely need to be re-rated to prevent rich teams signing up unproven talent (e.g. Latrell Mitchell) on lengthy contracts whilst their ratings are low.

There is probably also a decent case for temporarily allowing teams to exceed their points limit if the limits are exceeded via re-rating inflation.

[King Salvo]

Actually on that note, it seems NRL commentators, particularly on 9 have been gagged. They a so non-opinionated that they are boring. Anyone notice Gould and how impartial he is about sides and refereeing. He definitely has a gag clause in his contract.

Has anyone heard about or read anything from Gould and his opinion on the Pearce / Roosters fiasco. Not me that's for sure.

Gus wont say anything out of respect for Uncle Nick- one player will not be making a big difference as many on here /press are suggesting in making the chooks premiership favourites - lack depth in forwards and backs for instance - playing two backrowers as centres for an extended period does expose one of a few weaknesses.

[PeeGee]

Gus wont say anything out of respect for Uncle Nick- one player will not be making a big difference as many on here /press are suggesting in making the chooks premiership favourites - lack depth in forwards and backs for instance - playing two backrowers as centres for an extended period does expose one of a few weaknesses.

Yep , and it’s beyond belief that we have not addressed these weaknesses that I’ve been talking about all year. No way are we favourites- not even friggin close.

Saw some footage of JWH in 2013. He was an animal. He was also brilliant. What happened to that man.

Our forwards were shown to be soft on many games this year. 2 stand to mind, the farking Cows PF, and every single time we played Manly.

[gragra]

Yep , and it’s beyond belief that we have not addressed these weaknesses that I’ve been talking about all year. No way are we favourites- not even friggin close.

Saw some footage of JWH in 2013. He was an animal. He was also brilliant. What happened to that man.

Our forwards were shown to be soft on many games this year. 2 stand to mind, the farking Cows PF, and every single time we played Manly.

Ageed if Jwh and napa play like they often did this year next year, Cronk will struggle to control the game with no go forward.. JWH post knee surgery and now a father is ashadow of his awesome form of 2013 ! Napa a one game wonder against Souths and since nothing much except for Queensland ! And Jake takes so many wrong options! Pearce at 9 would solve the Jake problem and put Jake at lock for tackling only...a bit like Bunny Reilly of the 70's ! Hopefully Cronk will stop Latrell kicking out on the full, stop Ferguson dropping the ball and turn Napa and JWH into 150 to 200 metre eaters rather than 40 metres. If he can do all that he is indeed worth the money.

[Johnny Tobin]

Ageed if Jwh and napa play like they often did this year next year, Cronk will struggle to control the game with no go forward.. JWH post knee surgery and now a father is ashadow of his awesome form of 2013 ! Napa a one game wonder against Souths and since nothing much except for Queensland ! And Jake takes so many wrong options! Pearce at 9 would solve the Jake problem and put Jake at lock for tackling only...a bit like Bunny Reilly of the 70's ! Hopefully Cronk will stop Latrell kicking out on the full, stop Ferguson dropping the ball and turn Napa and JWH into 150 to 200 metre eaters rather than 40 metres. If he can do all that he is indeed worth the money.

Jake cannot play lock. It’s not 1975. Lock plays like a third prop now.

[The Sack]

Jake cannot play lock. It’s not 1975. Lock plays like a third prop now.

The game has changed over the years, some for the good but most for the bad in my opinion. The half and five eight used to play next to each other back in the day, then it changed to one half each side of the field which i despise. In recent times it has come back for some clubs where they play next to each other again.

I agree that the lock position has changed in today's game from what it was, to more of a prop's role, but why do all clubs have to play like that? Why can't some coach get back to utilising the lock position as another play making forward, like Freddy when he played lock. Great coaches were made from using different tactics and not following the sheep. Time for coaches to look outside the box, or maybe I should say, inside the old box and resurrect the old style ball playing lock and one that could tackle. Pearce may just be that man.

[ccfc bondi]

It's an unconscious bias which comes from media indoctrination and conditioning. If you hear it often enough people automatically think it's truth. It's the blurred line where myth becomes fact.
The sharks sign Dugan, Moylan and claim they still have enough room for Pearce but no-one raises an eyelid, because they lost Bird and Maloney - despite the fact they have about 5 or 6 Origin reps on their books and want to sign another one! The Roosters though must be cheating and the loss of a Guerra, SKD, Watson, Evans, Copley, Carter and likely Pearce is conveniently forgotten.

Absolutely right. And then you get ex-players (including one of our own who actually came up with the 'salary sombrero' joke) using it to get cheap laughs, which re-enforces the myth. No-one loves a conspiracy theory better than a rugby league crowd. Success breeds contempt and even when informed of the facts like player movements, signing players when they are young, etc, they still want to believe what they want to believe because it makes them feel better about themselves and their club, however badly it is run. I've given up worrying about them.

[Mickie Lane]

The game has changed over the years, some for the good but most for the bad in my opinion. The half and five eight used to play next to each other back in the day, then it changed to one half each side of the field which i despise. In recent times it has come back for some clubs where they play next to each other again.

I agree that the lock position has changed in today's game from what it was, to more of a prop's role, but why do all clubs have to play like that? Why can't some coach get back to utilising the lock position as another play making forward, like Freddy when he played lock. Great coaches were made from using different tactics and not following the sheep. Time for coaches to look outside the box, or maybe I should say, inside the old box and resurrect the old style ball playing lock and one that could tackle. Pearce may just be that man.

I agree with you.
In regards to not utilising the lock position as another play making forward is because the game is so about results. Coaches have got statistics which show that minimal mistakes & completion rates is what wins games. So the game plan is 4 one out runs & then a kick down field, the opposition do the same until 1 team makes a mistake or their is a penalty given.
It's a bit like watching U6's.
To throw the ball around or chip & chase or play a move like a run around no longer exists in the game at NRL level. Safety first is the priority & thats why the game now has athletes playing it & hardly any skilled footy players.

[Mickie Lane]

Jake cannot play lock. It’s not 1975. Lock plays like a third prop now.

What about on the wing or centre?

[Intercept]

Safety first is one theory Mickie.

However, since 2000, 7 of the Premiers have been the top scoring team in the regular season and 9 of the Premiers have conceded the least points. On 4 occasions, the eventual Premier has topped the charts in both attack and defence. Statistics can lie and be twisted, of course but on face value, it doesn't appear that having the best defence in the game is as dominant a factor - compared to having the best attack - as people might think. Note also that on 3 occasions, a team having both the best and defence failed to win the Premiership - Parramatta (01); Canterbury (03); Roosters (15).

Maybe bringing back a ball playing lock - as yourself and The Sack suggest - ain't that silly!