29 replies to this topic

[DeadShotKeen]

The idea of an Overseas Player Draft has been mooted by a few people on here at various times. I'm more and more drawn to the idea so I've put together a bit of a proposal as to how it could work.

One thing to bear in mind right away is that unlike NFL/NBA/NHL etc. we wouldn't be taking in kids who would be on small contracts (regardless of how talented) so it can't be quite as straightforward as "This guy goes here, this guy goes there" etc. However, the basis of the idea can still exist. Here's how I do it:

During the course of any season, overseas players whose contracts are up in the off-season can enter the SL draft. This doesn't act as a binding commitment to play for any team or even in the league, it's just saying "At this time I'm saying that I will talk to SL clubs in the off-season, if any of them want me". Players can come and go from the draft pool as often as they want. If any of them sign elsewhere before we get to them (ie NRL), too bad. But ideally if we can get NRL to introduce the same system then basically both our and their players will do their contract negotiations in both hemispheres during the off-season rather than earlier (ie like at present). If NRL don't go for it, I still think we could. If we get fewer Antipodean players as a result, so be it.

Anyway, the way the draft works is that the 6 teams that miss the play-offs enter a "draft lottery", US style. The lowest placed team has the most balls in the urn and the highest the least, on a sliding scale. The order is then drawn accordingly - 1st ball out of the urn gets its team 1st pick etc. This lottery is to prevent any team from "tanking" late in the season to guarantee an early pick. There's a train of thought that you actually don't scale the lottery but just make it equal between all 6, to even further prevent tanking. That's fair enough. Either way I'm happy with. The NBA favour the scale just because they prefer the strongest possibility of the best players going to the weakest teams and said scale strikes a balance between that and avoiding tanking. But I see the merits of the even split argument also. I'm ambivalent as to how you decide the lottery scaling but the first 6 picks should certainly go to the 6 non play-off sides.

The play-off teams then pick in reverse order of finishing place, eg 8th picks 7th up to 1st picking 14th. I personally would use league position rather than post-season finish just because it's neater and easier. It's open to debate I suppose but I don't see too much merit in complicating things with how far everyone went in the play-offs. If the 8th team win the GF and also get a better draft pick than the other 7, so what? Call it an extra win bonus.

The order is then repeated from the top if any players are left after the first round, ie all 14 teams have selected 1 player (or passed - read on!). In any given year, of course, it may be that only half a dozen overseas players agree deals (or even none) but the order is there if needed.

How the "picking" works is that the first team "on the clock" basically are able to speak with as many players in the draft pool as they want but only agree terms with 1 in any given round. If for whatever reason they can't agree terms with any of them, they can forfeit their involvement. They may already be committed to their full overseas quota for the following year, for example. Or it may be that they have little or no cap space or wish to spend what they do have on existing players. This seems unlikely with the earlier picks given that said teams would be poorly performing by virtue of their high pick but there may be a good reason.

A player, also, may not wish to sign for a specific team for the offered amount and this is fair enough. I don't think we want to be forcing players to play somewhere they don't want to. Teams might not always get their first choice but they do at least get to speak to everyone left in the pool before the next team gets to them and should thus hopefully land someone decent, should they be keen to get an overseas star.

The RFL should have close dealings with every pick process as they would of course be interested in sides not taking up players and particularly if they have cap space. This would quite possibly count as a bit of a black mark against any side as it shows a lack of ambition. But as I say, there may be good reasons a team doesn't want to take a Lance Hohaia or a Trent Waterhouse or whoever. It may be that none of the players in the draft fit the profile of what they're looking for, or they just don't rate any of them. Unlikely, but the draft should be flexible in this regard and not force either team or player to do anything they're uncomfortable with. It needs to be mutually agreeable.

Obviously one thing that might happen is that certain players may wait for certain clubs to move for them. Hohaia and Waterhouse could, for example, just say "no" until Saints and Wire get to them and then sign. That's fair enough. Ultimately, the draft and cap in tandem would mean that the weaker teams at least both got at them first and were (or at least should) also be able to offer them more money. In the vast majority of instances, I'm sure the club gets their man. Also it seems less likely in the licensed cap era that players would be too worried about where they end up. Sides like Leeds and Wigan with their big crowds will always have a little more alure, perhaps, but then no system can entirely obliterate that and nor, I don't think, should it. Fair play to them. This is no different to the US leagues where big market sides have a bit more pull with free agents than small market sides. But at least this way the other sides have more of a fighting chance of landing a genuine overseas star and Leeds, Wigan and their ilk are not able to use their clout and pull to get ahead of the pack with overseas stars quite so easily as currently.

How much fun would this be and how great would it be for assisting with SL's competitive balance?

Do we think NRL might go for it at their end with our own exports also?

General thoughts?

[The Best The Beautiful The Only]

Eww no.

[Ponterover]

Yawn

Draft or Mergers is all this broken record spouts

Almost as bad as Paris and his Toulouse fixation

[deluded pom?]

Yawn

Draft or Mergers is all this broken record spouts

Almost as bad as Paris and his Toulouse fixation

Dodgy iPod surely?

[DeadShotKeen]

Eww no.

Any particular reason?

[DeadShotKeen]

I've found a slight flaw in my plan but there's a neat workaround.

Due to the open nature of it, there's little to stop a player agreeing terms (in principle) with a higher placed team during the season then just saying no to all lower placed teams during the draft and signing with said higher placed team. The way I'd deal with this is to have maximum contract lengths and say that a player can only sign a 3 year deal (the maximum) if he hasn't turned anyone down, unless a club higher up the chain offers him more money. This prevents a team holding a player to ransom with a derisory offer and also benefits sides with the most cap space, regardless of where they finished in the league ladder.

Of course it would be a gamble for a player to pass as if it's a strong draft the higher placed teams might favour taking someone they deem to be only marginally inferior (or it may be a toss up) for 3 years rather than 2.

So take scenario 1 where team 1 have 1st pick and they talk terms with players A and B but only offer player A a contract. He accepts, so it can be for 3 years.
Team 2 are then up next and talk to player B. They can offer him 3 years as he didn't turn team 1 down. And so on.

Scenario 2 might be that player A refuses team 1's offer. He can then only sign a 3 year deal with teams 2-14 if their terms are better and they haven't taken someone else instead. However, he can still sign for any of them for lower or equivalent value to the rejected offer but only for a maximum of 2 years.

Essentially then winning the draft would basically mean you get to talk to the best player first and have the most realistic chance of being able to offer him a 3 year deal, nothing more. Which sounds both good and fair in my book. Players and agents I suspect would buy in. At face value of course they'd favour a free market "anything goes" scenario but you'd have to sell to them the benefits of the competitive balance in terms of driving customer demand and sponsorship for the league etc. If teams and sponsors (particularly TV broadcasters, who you suspect would love it) got behind it, it would be of huge benefit to the game.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 14 April 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[a.n Other]

I've found a slight flaw in my plan but there's a neat workaround.

Due to the open nature of it, there's little to stop a player agreeing terms (in principle) with a higher placed team during the season then just saying no to all lower placed teams during the draft and signing with said higher placed team. The way I'd deal with this is to have maximum contract lengths and say that a player can only sign a 3 year deal (the maximum) if he hasn't turned anyone down, unless a club higher up the chain offers him more money. This prevents a team holding a player to ransom with a derisory offer and also benefits sides with the most cap space, regardless of where they finished in the league ladder.

Of course it would be a gamble for a player to pass as if it's a strong draft the higher placed teams might favour taking someone they deem to be only marginally inferior (or it may be a toss up) for 3 years rather than 2.

So take scenario 1 where team 1 have 1st pick and they talk terms with players A and B but only offer player A a contract. He accepts, so it can be for 3 years.
Team 2 are then up next and talk to player B. They can offer him 3 years as he didn't turn team 1 down. And so on.

Scenario 2 might be that player A refuses team 1's offer. He can then only sign a 3 year deal with teams 2-14 if their terms are better and they haven't taken someone else instead. However, he can still sign for any of them for lower or equivalent value to the rejected offer but only for a maximum of 2 years.

Essentially then winning the draft would basically mean you get to talk to the best player first and have the most realistic chance of being able to offer him a 3 year deal, nothing more. Which sounds both good and fair in my book. Players and agents I suspect would buy in. At face value of course they'd favour a free market "anything goes" scenario but you'd have to sell to them the benefits of the competitive balance in terms of driving customer demand and sponsorship for the league etc. If teams and sponsors (particularly TV broadcasters, who you suspect would love it) got behind it, it would be of huge benefit to the game.

Sounds straightforward enough. Wonder why it hasnt happend before. Anything to make the game easier to understand for the fans and also should be a doddle for the RFL to administer this. Great idea.

[DeadShotKeen]

Sounds straightforward enough. Wonder why it hasnt happend before. Anything to make the game easier to understand for the fans and also should be a doddle for the RFL to administer this. Great idea.

Yes, let's never do anything radical or innovative because it might be a bit difficult.

[DeadShotKeen]

Genuine question to the naysayers: Do you not think this season would be fundamentally more interesting if Hohaia and Waterhouse had signed for Widnes and Wakefield respectively? Would it not have been absolutely terrific for the league as a competition and in terms of attracting more neutrals to the game? If not, why not?

[The Parksider]

Genuine question to the naysayers: Do you not think this season would be fundamentally more interesting if Hohaia and Waterhouse had signed for Widnes and Wakefield respectively? Would it not have been absolutely terrific for the league as a competition and in terms of attracting more neutrals to the game? If not, why not?

I'll give you an answer Keeny.

I think Wakefield and Widnes sit on areas that have a long history of Junior RL.

They should be forced to develop players of their own and not be rewarded for failing to do so.

These two clubs are big enough to rival any of the current big boys.

They must be made to do this and not be given favours.

Cheers.........

[deluded pom?]

I'll give you an answer Keeny.

I think Wakefield and Widnes sit on areas that have a long history of Junior RL.

They should be forced to develop players of their own and not be rewarded for failing to do so.

These two clubs are big enough to rival any of the current big boys.

They must be made to do this and not be given favours.

Cheers.........

The JRL argument is irrelevant as ALL SL teams have overseas players regardless of how great their development scheme may be.

[DeadShotKeen]

I'll give you an answer Keeny.

I think Wakefield and Widnes sit on areas that have a long history of Junior RL.

They should be forced to develop players of their own and not be rewarded for failing to do so.

These two clubs are big enough to rival any of the current big boys.

They must be made to do this and not be given favours.

Cheers.........

I agree. I don't see how an overseas player draft is in any way mutually exclusive to player development though. Clearly, relying on the odd overseas star alone isn't going to repeatedly bring home the bacon. The point is it's a bit of a boost to the profile of the under-performing teams and a fantastic fillip to their fans and their overall marketability.

Where we'd differ from the US sports is that our homegrown players wouldn't ever enter any kind of draft, our sides would continue to fund their own academies.

For me it's a way of incorporating the best of both systems.

[DeadShotKeen]

Another point I want to make in support of this is the obvious benefit to the development of our young players. Clearly we see that the top sides in SL are the ones with the most pedigree overseas players and by and large these sides also have the best crops of English kids. So there is an unpalatable clash there. Not only are many of our (best) kids being kept out of sides by top overseas players but those kids at the weaker sides are going toe-to-toe against stacked sides without comparable help alongside them, which I would imagine isn't great for their confidence.

Clearly if you wanted to take in a crop of pedigree overseas players and distribute them only to best benefit our homegrown players, you would spread them very evenly. This way, for example, Hohaia and Meli don't keep out Makinson and Foster at Saints, Waterhouse and Hodgson don't keep out McCarthy and Ratchford at Wire and the homegrown lads at teams like Widnes and Wakey go into battle with a bit more class alongside them, possibly improving them during match play (debatable I suppose) but also during training etc. (less debatable as it's a generally accepted maxim that young players pick up great habits from being around top players). And maybe this is why players like Tomkins, Roby et al don't look quite so great when put in front of the Aussies. They get too much help week in week out in SL - help less afforded to the Aussie lads in NRL.

"But Saints and Wire would pick up other overseas players from the draft" you say? For sure. But quite possibly players not as good as Makinson, Foster, McCarthy or Ratchford. Every team will still probably fill their overseas quota, but all teams will be less reliant on large numbers of them and would view most of them as complementing rather than outshining their homegrown players.

Just something to think about if you're being dismissive of this idea. It's not just about competitive balance, there are other enormous benefits.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 14 April 2012 - 07:23 PM.

[Ponterover]

Dodgy iPod surely?

It'll be a generational thing, I'm a child of the 70s

[Father Ted]

I think your trying to resolve the overseas player problems from the wrong angle.
There are all sorts of legal problems here in the UK and EAA that a draft system may not be able to overcome.

My view is that a club should have a minimum of eight club trained players in the match day 17. This should increase by one on each licence review until the minimum becomes 13. That would take 15 years but some clubs will need that amount of time.
The overseas quota then could be abolished as in the remaining four there may well be federation trained players.
Also a club should only be able to recruit one player a year from outside its own service area. This used to be a rule but appears to no longer apply. This would protect smaller clubs from repeatedly having their best talent signed by bigger clubs.

Club's success in the future will be determined by their youth development and smaller clubs will need rule protection so their best talent will not go elsewhere.

[Lobbygobbler]

Didnt read this but an overseas draft is a good idea to stop the top teams from ruining the game. Who cares if the only options for Aussie stars are the bottom teams - it will strengthen the comp.

Edited by Lobbygobbler, 15 April 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[The Parksider]

The JRL argument is irrelevant as ALL SL teams have overseas players regardless of how great their development scheme may be.

My point is simply that all the SL clubs should be up to a standard whereby they don't need uneven recruitment rules. The clubs cited as needing help have the same advantages as the clubs winning trophies. i.e. they are in the north where there's a lot of quality juniors to go at as well as overseas players.

If anything should be doctored put the top overseas stars into London

[1976PMJwires]

reduce the limit to 2 overseas for all clubs.......no back doors

[Futtocks]

if the only options for Aussie stars are the bottom teams - it will strengthen the comp.

That would also help with the number of Aussie/Kiwi players in the British game - if they couldn't guarantee a spot at a top club, many (most?) wouldn't bother coming in the first place. And the ones that did would be more likely to have the right attitude.

Can't see it happening, though.

[DeadShotKeen]

Didnt read this but an overseas draft is a good idea to stop the top teams from ruining the game. Who cares if the only options for Aussie stars are the bottom teams - it will strengthen the comp.

Wow. An unlikely ally there, cheers Lobby!