Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Porthoz, post: 2664454, member: 2221"] I agree with this post in regards to the purpose of the salary cap. I've also added the fourth option to the poll. Although I am more in the "no salary cap" camp, I'm not sure it would work in Australia, and how most clubs would survive in an environment where clubs like Broncos, Chooks or Warriors would be able to get most of the talent, and win most competitions. Most clubs already struggle for crowds as it is, so I doubt making them even less attractive would work. So, we must maintain a system that ensures the talent is spread and every club has at least a theoretical chance of winning a competition. TPA's are of course one of the major issues, where a club like the Raiders struggles to attract the stars, because no one wants to live in Australia's arsehole, besides not having the business support allowing them to afford the same offers as the more connected clubs. And you can't get rid of the TPA's, as that would really mean losing our best players to competing codes... A concession system would help, but not solve the problem. I think a longevity/loyalty system works best, as opposed to the one club player system from Ari's example, because that would be punishing players like Milford, who move to a different club for other reasons than financial reward. Longevity would still do the required filtering, where we could for example provide a 5% discount from the cap for each year a player has been at the club, and possibly also cater for formation, by providing an initial 15% discount for a player coming through the ranks as opposed to recruited elsewhere. Should the NRL make-up the difference between what the incumbent club can offer and what a more powerful club is able to table? Possibly, but the next question will be... how far do we prop clubs up, and where should we say "enough is enough!"? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now