Only in the same way that cheaper players are more attractive now than more expensive players.

well not really, that player may be exceptional value for money, if they dont have the space on the cap he cannot be signed so any measurement of his quality becomes immaterial, also clubs arent using the same scale because all clubs cant afford the cap and players have shown a willingness to play for the big clubs for less money



now this is a principle that stretches across both caps, and even in a none capped world (no club is working with a bottomless budget).



where they differ is that A) players like Ellis would be less likely and less able to play for less money at the bigger clubs under a points system,

B) youth development and bang for your buck become much more important under a points system because it wont be your 6-10 internationals who win you trophies but the other 15-19 players who are the vast majority of the squad

c) if a club wants to compete with union they can

D) we would be more likely to see the very top quality overseas players come over, as they count highly on the points cap but clubs would be able to offer them more money

E) there is no possible way of fudging the cap, we can all see every week where clubs are, its a much more open and transparent cap

surely 50% more so?



if overseas player A's £50k a year contract now costs them £75k on the cap, he becomes a fair bit more attractive than overseas player B's £200k a year contract which now costs £300k on the cap

Yes, really. That club has decided they value the other players (the ones they have signed) higher.







As more clubs are becoming able to spend to the cap we are getting more competition at the top end of the league with more big clubs. This is what I want to see.







A would be a bad thing, hindering player's career progression. As for B, bang for your buck is less important if you can afford to send more bucks - clubs spending the most on salaries would get the best players in each point category. C isn't an issue, seriously, Smith is back now you can chill out about it. D would clearly benefit the few clubs who spend the most. E is irrelevant as there would be no need to fudge the cap as it wouldn't stop clubs from trying to buy success.

No change then. Cheaper player has less impact on the available cap space.

Would you be so worried about in increase in NICs or a clamdown on image rights or offshore payments?



Perhaps now foreign player A at £75K seems poor value to english player C at £65K though. Or English players D, E and F can all be signed instead of player B. More English players playing pro.

Why does that matter?







I'm not avoiding anything, you brought imaginary figures that relate to nothing into the equation.







Ah, so we get back to big clubs being able to pay players more and reducing competition.



Let's be honest, this is all about keeping Leeds at the top isn't it?



With the current cap, you can't have a team of superstars, with this suggestion you can't have a team of superstars. There's no change. What can happen though is whereas now a club like Salford can compete with bigger clubs for signatures by offering more money, under the new one they couldn't because the bigger clubs would blow them out of the water. Where a squad man may take a chance at a smaller club and thrive, why bother when they could sit in a big squad earning a shed load more money with a slowly decreasing points cost?

to put it a bit more in the real world under the system proposed



Leeds would have 104 points (thats with 16 points exempted for 8 international players who were developed by them)

Saints would have 106 (with 14 points exempted)

Wigan would have 112 (with 6 points exempted)

Wire would have 106 (with 2 points exempted)

Hull would have 102 (with 6 points exempted)

Hull KR would have 108 (with 0 exemptions)

Quins would have 96 (with 2 points exempted)

and Salford 100 (with 0 exemptions)



as you can see, there isnt a massive difference in totals between clubs, but it shows how important developing your own quality players becomes, and how reliant the smaller clubs are on average overseas players

or they arent able to get rid of the other players,



really, which big clubs are these? ones backed by sugar daddies by any chance? ones which were traditionally big by anychance

so in our attempts to spread talent across the league it is a bad thing that all the best players dont congregate at the big clubs?

but only so many of them, so there would always be players of a similar quality that couldnt sign for the big clubs.



you are looking at it from the point of view that there are more points available than players of the necessary quality to improve the lower teams to fill them, I have put the some totals above to highlight this wouldnt be the case, that most of the top clubs would need to release experienced quality players just to be able to fit under the cap,



this would leave more players for the likes of Quins, increase the supply but not the demand.



besides anything it would force clubs to have more youngsters in their squad. Which would automatically mean there would be more experienced quality players available for lower clubs



well that is a good thing, and in the future if another club tried to sign a player like Smith, that club if they so wished would be in a position to compete



and everyone else in the league, as A)that club would not be able to compete for the players they would compete for now as they had signed better already, allowing other clubs to sign them. B) we would have better quality players throughout a more evenly spread league leading to a higher quality league, a better product and all the associated benefits that would bring



other than the points cap limiting the actual amount of players you can bring in from elsewhere, considering they cost more on the cap

i dont doubt this is the case, and would happily see fewer average overseas players come over



A side effect of this though would be it becoming virtually impossible to bring a top quality import over, we wouldnt see Barrett, Johnson, Lauitiiti, Eastwood, Buderus, Gidley, etc come over because they would simply be too expensive and i think our league would be poorer for it

it was a direct response to your assertion, you missed the last bit out, it would have pointed you in the direction



it was an example which highlighted the inaccuries in your premise



no you are confused, its about removing the link between these two things.



no, in fact, if you fully understood the cap, you would see that Leeds would be quite hard hit

WTF, no you have clubs who have less money offering more money? when did Salford last out bid Leeds or Saints for a star player? only for a very limited amount of players, and in a way that would mean there would need to be some 'give' elsewhere in the squad

their points cost wouldnt decrease firstly. Secondly why would a big club spend shed loads or money and 4 points on a player who couldnt get a game for them when it would mean should a better experienced non-international become available they have taken themselves out of the running?

I'm looking at it from the point of view that players will be grouped into categories, 6 point players, 5 point players etc. (with a little bit of fudging to make it easier for the top clubs to keep the top players). Clubs will be limited as to how many players they can sign from each group. Clubs who spend the most on salaries will get the best players from each group. Leading to the exact problems of clubs trying to buy success that the salary cap addresses (those problems primarily being clubs spending beyond their means and a lack of competitive fixtures).

well that is where you are going wrong.



Players would be worth the same amount of points to any club trying to buy them, the only club who would benefit from any exemption or dispensation are the club players are currently at.