(Archived) THE RUMOUR MILL - Player Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sparkles

Sparkles

Jaws
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
12,082
Reaction score
2,818
Thresher Shark said:
Top 4 teams get to pick 2 players from each of the bottom 8 teams for their finals run (maximum of 8 ring ins).

Teams that came 5th to 8th get to pick 1 from each of the bottom 8 (maximum of 4 ring ins).
Click to expand...
16th placed team is completely amalgamated with 1st place, 15th with 2nd and so on. You then get a top 60 squad to use as you will.
 
Sir Chadley

Sir Chadley

Jaws
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
18,436
Reaction score
2,087
Location
The Ridge!
I heard on the radio this morning that the general consensus with the deadline of signing players will revert back to June 30 next year. Apparently PVL has alluded to this in recent interviews.
 
Western Sharkie

Western Sharkie

Jaws
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,969
Reaction score
3,491
Location
Perth WA
Sparkles

Sparkles

Jaws
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
12,082
Reaction score
2,818
I keep bouning around on this concept of player loans. There's plenty of pro's and cons.
It's good for players. They get extra experience in some very good organisations. And after the last few years they really could use it for their development.
It's good for the game, if more players are able to grow into regular first graders.
It's fine for the bottom 8 clubs, so long as the players loaned out are only depth and there's the option to recall them if they need to.
It's great for top 8 clubs who are decimated by injury.

It's not so great for top 8 clubs who aren't receiving players. It gives their opponents a leg up.

I think I struggle most with it as a rugby league purist. I want my team to be my team, with my players. No mergers, no late-season signings thank you PVL.

What we really need are some guidelines around those points to protect clubs. It's all very new and it seems a verbal agreement is all that's needed at this time, which is pretty dicey. You don't want to see a situation where a player is earmarked for loan before their final 8 hopes are extinguised or any other dicey **** like that going down.
 
Proud Shark

Proud Shark

Jaws
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
2,561
Sparkles said:
I keep bouning around on this concept of player loans. There's plenty of pro's and cons.
It's good for players. They get extra experience in some very good organisations. And after the last few years they really could use it for their development.
It's good for the game, if more players are able to grow into regular first graders.
It's fine for the bottom 8 clubs, so long as the players loaned out are only depth and there's the option to recall them if they need to.
It's great for top 8 clubs who are decimated by injury.

It's not so great for top 8 clubs who aren't receiving players. It gives their opponents a leg up.

I think I struggle most with it as a rugby league purist. I want my team to be my team, with my players. No mergers, no late-season signings thank you PVL.

What we really need are some guidelines around those points to protect clubs. It's all very new and it seems a verbal agreement is all that's needed at this time, which is pretty dicey. You don't want to see a situation where a player is earmarked for loan before their final 8 hopes are extinguised or any other dicey **** like that going down.
Click to expand...
I think a decent loan system in the pre-season would be a great idea such as what happened with Grant and Momirovski. But we can't have chopping and changing. If you're going to have mid-season loans, it should only be for players who have played <30-50% of first grade games they were fit and available for.

Depth moving around and getting first grade opportunities is a good thing. Taking established first graders from one side and blocking a pathway to grade for a player in another side is ****.
 
Sparkles

Sparkles

Jaws
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
12,082
Reaction score
2,818
Proud Shark said:
I think a decent loan system in the pre-season would be a great idea such as what happened with Grant and Momirovski. But we can't have chopping and changing. If you're going to have mid-season loans, it should only be for players who have played <30-50% of first grade games they were fit and available for.

Depth moving around and getting first grade opportunities is a good thing. Taking established first graders from one side and blocking a pathway to grade for a player in another side is ****.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Otherwise we'd end up seeing the weaker top 8 teams loaning the player that just had his first grade spot blocked by a loan player!
 
bort

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
30,274
Reaction score
6,126
Location
IN A BAR
Sparkles said:
I keep bouning around on this concept of player loans. There's plenty of pro's and cons.
It's good for players. They get extra experience in some very good organisations. And after the last few years they really could use it for their development.
It's good for the game, if more players are able to grow into regular first graders.
It's fine for the bottom 8 clubs, so long as the players loaned out are only depth and there's the option to recall them if they need to.
It's great for top 8 clubs who are decimated by injury.

It's not so great for top 8 clubs who aren't receiving players. It gives their opponents a leg up.

I think I struggle most with it as a rugby league purist. I want my team to be my team, with my players. No mergers, no late-season signings thank you PVL.

What we really need are some guidelines around those points to protect clubs. It's all very new and it seems a verbal agreement is all that's needed at this time, which is pretty dicey. You don't want to see a situation where a player is earmarked for loan before their final 8 hopes are extinguised or any other dicey **** like that going down.
Click to expand...
Apparently the NRL doesn't actually have a system in place so it is literally cancelling one contract and signing a whole new one at the 'loan' club and then, due to the timing, they can also sign one for back at their original club. Think most players would want to know their return will be confirmed in a contract before they tear up their current one. Have it sitting ready to sign in front of them.

Proud Shark said:
I think a decent loan system in the pre-season would be a great idea such as what happened with Grant and Momirovski. But we can't have chopping and changing. If you're going to have mid-season loans, it should only be for players who have played <30-50% of first grade games they were fit and available for.

Depth moving around and getting first grade opportunities is a good thing. Taking established first graders from one side and blocking a pathway to grade for a player in another side is ****.
Click to expand...
That was a great use of the system, both teams had needs and a fringe guy they could send to get a start at the other club. Exactly what it should be used for.
A 175 game NRL player with 95 tries to their name sits a bit different. And current timeline definitely too close to finals.
On the one hand anyone can do it if they save the cap space but on the other hand I still don't like it for vet players.

Some interesting points raised by Kempy
If Nofo is on 525k for the full year say he has 100k remaining which Storm pick up.
On a cap of 10million (to keep it rounded) have they smartly used their last 100k or have they now falsely given themselves a cap of 10,425,000 because they have used that last 100 to sign a 525k player? Just because he only has 100k owed to him for the year doesn't make him a 100k valued player.
Obviously can argue semantics about Nofo's value but I think the point is very reasonable.
If a club kept 200k spare and signed a million dollar player for the last 20% of the season they don't get a 200k player, they get a million dollar player.
You'd be mad not to hold a spot and 120k-ish aside unless things change. And if everyone does it then it'll be a circus.

Another thing I didn't like, which he also mentioned, was trades like this potentially cost another club the chance to play finals.
Not just because of their own position in the 8 but wins they may drop to other teams on the cusp.
In the case of the Storm I guess it is more a jostle for ladder position and some outside the 8 clubs would rather see them stronger than to drop games vs Eels and Roosters.
 
Last edited:
Sparkles

Sparkles

Jaws
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
12,082
Reaction score
2,818
bort said:
Apparently the NRL doesn't actually have a system in place so it is literally cancelling one contacts and signing a whole new one at the 'loan' club and then, due to the timing, they can also sign one for back at their original club. Think most players would want to know their return will be confirmed in a contract before they tear up their current one. Have it sitting ready to sign in front of them.


That was a great use of the system, both teams had needs and a fridge guy they could send to get a start at the other club. Exactly what it should be used for.
A 175 game NRL player with 95 tries to their name sits a bit different. And current timeline definitely too close to finals.
On the one hand anyone can do it if they save the cap space but on the other hand I still don't like it for vet players.

Some interesting points raised by Kempy
If Nofo is on 525k for the full year say he has 100k remaining which Storm pick up.
On a cap of 10million (to keep it rounded) have they smartly used their last 100k or have they now falsely given themselves a cap of 10,425,000 because they have used that last 100 to sign a 525k player? Just because he only has 100k owed to him for the year doesn't make him a 100k valued player.
Obviously can argue semantics about Nofo's value but I think the point is very reasonable.
If a club kept 200k spare and signed a million dollar player for the last 20% of the season they don't get a 200k player, they get a million dollar player.
You'd be mad not to hold a spot and 120k-ish aside unless things change. And if everyone does it then it'll be a circus.

Another thing I didn't like, which he also mentioned, was trades like this potentially cost another club the chance to play finals.
Not just because of their own position in the 8 but wins they may drop to other teams on the cusp.
In the case of the Storm I guess it is more a jostle for ladder position and some outside the 8 clubs would rather see them stronger than to drop games vs Eels and Roosters.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. The smart clubs would keep a few $100k in their kittles if this loan period is going to be a regular thing. And especially if there's no governanace around why a loan can be made. You could get a couple of million dollars worth of players for small change, totally tipping the balance of the final run home.
 
egg

egg

Jaws
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
12,846
Reaction score
1,035
Chad said:
I heard on the radio this morning that the general consensus with the deadline of signing players will revert back to June 30 next year.
Click to expand...

Hows that fair for the Storm and Roosters moving forward ;)
 
egg

egg

Jaws
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
12,846
Reaction score
1,035
bort said:
Don't you mean how's that fair for the weak teams who will have to give up their better players even earlier!
Click to expand...
Was being sarcastic . ( with the ;) )
Sorry Bort
 
bort

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
30,274
Reaction score
6,126
Location
IN A BAR
Sparkles said:
That is a good point. The smart clubs would keep a few $100k in their kittles if this loan period is going to be a regular thing. And especially if there's no governanace around why a loan can be made. You could get a couple of million dollars worth of players for small change, totally tipping the balance of the final run home.
Click to expand...
Imagine the circus when 4 top 8 clubs have 100-200k left in their roster and another 4 have like 100k each
And they are all bidding like crazy for players from the bottom 4 teams.

Team #2 needs a starting prop and can offer David Klemmer 100k for the last rest of the season to come and challenge for finals...
But wait here comes Team #3 who could use a bench prop and can offer him 150k instead!
Meanwhile team 8 are struggling to stay in the 8, he he makes their 17... they have 200k available...
He takes the 150k but Tino gets wind of the 200k on offer and takes that up. Now you've still got team #2 with 100k they need to spend on a prop even more now... Tigers are willing to send Pole for the finals experience but he'll only come for the full 100k...

It'd certainly be a something to watch unfold but what a cluster****
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top