• NRL
• NRL Fixtures
• NRL Grand Final
• State of Origin
• Kangaroos
• NRL Tipping
• NRL RSS
• NRL photos

The Crowd Says (26) | Page 1 of Comments

• oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment

  A points system could revolutionalize the game of rugby league. It will be transperent for a start. No cash sums involved, so everyone can see the results.
  Imagine the interest in looking and working out who you can buy, and who you can afford. Not only that, it gives players a rating each year. Fans will be able to keep a eye on players to see if there form is slipping by watching there ratings each year. I think it will also help coaches find a balance over time of what they need to acheive. Plus you can quickly look at who you can afford to buy so to speak.

  This is something rugby league really needs to work hard and acheive. A point system is going to be fantastic for the game, the players, and most importantly, the fans.

  Reply

• mushi said | July 23rd 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment

  This is far and away one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen out of the management brains trust. You cannot overlay a purely objective system of valuation on values that will be partly objective and partly subjective.

  If the cap was instituted so that the NRL could align player wages with the revenue how in the hell does this achieve it unless they also still have the cap?

  The system that has been discussed is head shakingly bad.

  The NRL has yet to really embrace objective analysis as a tool for player evaluation relying almost exclusively of the subjective views of scouts and management and yet they are going to overlay an entirely objective evaluation of talent?

  Yes they are going to overlay it but how does overlaying it whilst teams adhere to another system but how does that in anyway determine how clubs will behave when the system is enforced – it doesn’t.

  I’d give any reasonably intelligent teenager that follows rugby league a half day with the regulations and the player values to come up with how they would prioritise players and manipulate the system to gain an advantage. Now think what a tax lawyer or financial structurer would do with an entire offseason.

  So the system could work…so long as no club employs anyone smarter than the panel which could be tough.

  Reply

  • Brett McKay said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment

    Mushi, I wondered where you going on reading your first line, but you make some very good points. So I’ll just add this – that unless the points system is also going to come with min/max salary attached to it (so, for eg, a 1pt rookie can earn $50-80K, but a 6pt superstar is in the $350-400K bracket), a salary cap of some sort will still have to be in place to police the amount a club spends on salary…

    Reply

    • Rob C said | July 23rd 2010 @ 2:15pm | Report comment

      I am of the opinion that the salary cap should be scrapped under a points system. Clubs should be able to pay what they can afford and players should receive what they are worth.

      If the points system was structured correctly then the competition would be even so it would not matter what clubs paid their players as their squad would need to align with these guidelines (i.e. a club can only have x number of Test and Origin representative players in their squad).

      To protect clubs going broke (which the salary cap is supposed to help address????), auditors should still perform audits on clubs from a cash flow management perspective to ensure that they are spending within thier means. Then we don’t have an issue with clubs falling over.

      Bring it on in my opinion as it is the best and most transparent thing the game can do. It will also allow players to better commercialise themselves to take better advantage of the Corporate opportunities that are currently to rigorously penalised under current salary cap rules.

      Reply

      • mushi said | July 23rd 2010 @ 2:47pm | Report comment

        Rob but that only works if:
        1. you believe the cap is there to encourage parity and not to link salaries to revenue (despite the NRL saying the cap serves to link the two)
        2. the system is structure correctly to reflect the way they affect the result which I believe is simply impossible due to the differing roles of each position and the different styles of play. There are just too many subjective elements to have a 100% objective measure like this.

        Reply

        • Rob C said | July 24th 2010 @ 11:07am | Report comment

          Mushi, you talk about it being impossible to structure due to positions and subjectivity. You are over analysing this and thinking of a points system which values players in the same way as fantasy league is now done. I believe this is not the angle that the league is coming from. I think they are looking at criteria such as:

          – Current Test player (maximum X number in squad)
          – Former Test player (maximum X number in squad)
          – Current Origin player (maximum X number in squad)
          – Former origin player (maximum X number in squad)
          – Less than 50 NRL / SL games (no maximum number in squad)
          – More than 50 NRL / SL games, but less than 100 games (no maximum number in squad)
          – More than 100 NRL / SL games but less than 150 games (maximum X number in squad)
          – More than 150 NRL / SL games (maximum X number in squad)

          Each team would have a maximum number of points that they can have in a squad of 25 (i.e. 100 with players allocated points based on which class they fall into).

          There would be concessions / discounts for local juniors and long serving 1 club players.

          This approach is transparent and even. You make a call about valuing a half back against a fullback but in my opinion this is a club recruitment issue and has no bearing on this system (much the same way as the salary cap does this now). How a club chooses to structure their team based on rep players is their business as long as they stay within the criteria above. This policy is retrospective so if a player falls into another bracket then the club is not forced to offload them. It will however count within the cap for future recruitment and team changes meaning other players off contract will be lost in order to stay within the points / classes.

          As I stated before with this in mind clubs can pay players what the players are worth and players can get better commercial deals which are now prohibited under the cap. This approach would even out the comp because even a Broncos which is a wealthier club can still only have x number of representative players in its top 25. This is onething which the current salary cap system does not prevent. Have a look at past Brisbane teams and tell me how they were under the cap? Under this approach they are prohibited from stacking a team, although the quality would still be high as clubs are not forced to offload players to stay within a restrictive salary cap (This is the biggest flaw in the current salary cap as it thins out talent and forces players to SL / Rugby / AFL rather than to other NRL teams).

          I actually believe this will also have a deflationary impact on player salaries as the league will have a higher quality base of players to choose from and with no restriction on wages there is less pressure to pay big dollars for one or two markee players as you can now have four / five or even six players able to be held in your squad (so in effect money is spread more evenly within a team).

          Once again I highlight that auditors will be important to the league to ensure that clubs are spending within their means (this is a start of season and end of season review which looks as projected spending and actual spending and the clubs business plan to ensure that these costs are sustainiable). This is more transparent and offers more value to clubs and the league.

          We need people with a glass half full mentality in league, not a glss half empty. Every man and his dog knows the current salary cap is a joke and is really destructive to the quality of players within the NRL. I for one think this approach will go a long way to removing subjectivity around the cap and improve overall quality in the comp. Which in effect will improve its marketability and long term value to the league.

          Bring it on!

          Reply

• mushi said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment

  Brett – sorry clicked on the screen to change windows and accidentally gave you a thumbs down (my bad and it won’t let me thumbs up to offset)

  Okay so we keep the cap in place (I can’t see the hard salary scale taking off) this doesn’t in any way stop teams from cheating – it just distracts us. Teams will prioritise player because the system will have inherent flaws and then if they are inclined to cheat they will overpay these undervalued players.

  The system as proposed assumes that each position is created equal and that experience is the ultimate determinant of ability. If the equation were as simple as a player with 100 game always influences the game more than a player with 50 games but always has an equal influence to a player with 122 then yes the system works. But we know that is utter bollocks. So we know from the start the system is utter bollocks.

  Now would you rather have the younger Australian number 1,7,9 or the older 3 guys that played off the bench? Apparently we want the older bench guys.

  How about the starting halves in origin or the two guys brought in for the game three dead rubber? Apparently they are equal.

  How about the second or third best half backs in the game but they play behind JT for Queensland or the revolving door NSW halfback? Why of course we want the revolving door guy.

  How about the guy who was injured for origin but would normally be the first guy picked – or his replacement? Apparently we would pick his replacement.

  Also outside of rep football would you rather the 100 game journeyman second rower or a young playmaking half yet to crack origin but easily one of the best players on your team? Journeyman second rower come on down.

  Even if they manage to make a more elegant system (which will be far more difficult to enforce for officials on the day) how do they determine it?

  I’m a big supporter of using objective methods to assist in valuing players and spotting trends where the “market” misapplies values but it still needs to be balanced with subjective evaluation.

  I’ve sat down and using four years of reasonably detailed team stats tried to do regression analysis to get a formula that compares players and I can’t get something that I’m comfortable is definitive because of the different ways team’s play and the ability to break out the influence of say a centre doing something or a second rower, any evaluation would require some subjective input as a sensibility test.

  Reply

• Brett McKay said | July 23rd 2010 @ 10:33am | Report comment

  Mushi, you’ve highlighted some obvious flaws, with the main one being that two players – two backrowers even – with 100 games under their belt and no SOO appearances as yet will be rated similarly. But scratch the surface and you find that one is an 80-minute tackling machine, and the other is an impact player who has come off the bench in 85 of his 100 games. Clearly not apples and apples.

  I’m not against the points system per se, I think it has a lot of merit in fact, but there has to be some kind of link to salary. Maybe in each squad, you’re only allowed 2 “marquee” 10pt players who you can pay whatever, 3 “elite” 8pt players on $300K, 10 everyman 5pt players on $200K tops, and 10 3pt rookies on no more than $100K.

  Squad of 25 cannot exceed 125pts and total salary cannot crack $5M per year. Game day 18 (incl one emergancy) cannot exceed 105pts.

  Or something. That’s just an example off the top of my head…

  Reply

  • Sam H said | July 23rd 2010 @ 1:34pm | Report comment

    See the problem here is to get a workable system it would have to be ridiculously complex. You’d need a swathe of different objective criteria to rate the players fairly – by the time you got done with that how on earth would clubs ever plan foward for keeping their teams under the points cap?

    All the system would do for the vast majority of players is distort the market forces which at the moment actually work fairly well – the problems with the cap aren’t with how players are priced but rather with its size and enforcement. And as others have pointed out the top ranked players would be priced out of the market for the poorer clubs anyway – if there were 4 or 5 ‘superstar’ ranked players they’d always be at the 3 or 4 or 5 richest clubs.

    Reply

    • oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 1:46pm | Report comment

      Its up to the poorer clubs to find superstars, and then hang onto them. Like it is now. Look, i could give you a example, just say i was CEO of Cronulla, i would offload Gallon, now i would get top dollar for him in points, say 9 on the rictor scale,
      In return, i would be looking for a player who is a future star, or a super star on the market. The club who gets Gallon would be happy, your club would be happy because you bought Inglis, because you could afford him under the cap, and under the points system.

      Gallon is great, but he is not a match winner, superstar backs are match winners. Cronulla have none of these types of players. You could pick up a Stagg or Ryan to do Gallon’s job. Clubs need to get smarter. Who was the last few real stars of Cronulla? E.T and Rogers, both backs, point scorers.
      Also growing superstars, hang onto them.

      Reply

• Gareth said | July 23rd 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment

  I’m with Mushi on this. It’d be a terrible idea if it functioned the way we’ve heard it outlined. The primary aspect of Fantasy league is player transfers, to the tune of 30 a season, and crucial to that is the dynamic nature of a player’s worth. I know there are comps with fixed player values, but they’re not as compelling, and ultimately come down to exploiting the low value of rookie players. More importantly though, they’re geared toward having a roster for one season and then starting from scratch the next year.

  The issues that I see:

  - Do the players dynamically change in value? In fantasy comps where they do, the key to success is establishing a solid core of high scorers, and a fringe of “investment” players that will quickly increase in value and lift your overall cap. Currently my team on the NRL’s Dream Team comp is worth about a million dollars more than when I started. If the NRL capped according to points, and those points were dynamic throughout the season, does that mean the meteoric rise of a Shaun Fensom or Matt Gillett suddenly becomes a disadvantage rather than a benefit?

  - If the players remain at a static value throughout a season, what’s to stop a club throwing a ridiculous sum of money at unheralded players when the prove themselves at first grade level? For instance, guys like Bryson Goodwin and Bronson Harrison proved to be very astute recruitment choices for the Bulldogs and Raiders respectively. Two rounds into the season, the Roosters see what great value they are, and offer $500,000 apiece.

  - To follow on from the above, presumably an off-season review takes place to reassign player ratings. I feel like the change would be too sudden. Rather than affording a team like the Raider several seasons to reshuffle their roster to fit in their maturing Toyota Cup alumni, they’d have to deal with a sudden points hike between 2009 and 2010.

  - I’m also not sold on the idea of a points cap for the side you name each week, as opposed to the Top 25. Maybe it would be an improvement affording teams an opportunity to temporarily replace players with long term injury, but there’s potential for greater disparity between teams who can afford genuine first graders as sqaud players, and teams that have to fill the gaps with lower tier players.

  - Scary thought – Laurie Daley determining something that actually has an impact on the integrity of the competition. I couldn’t agree less with his Origin selections, his Dally M points seem to go to whoever has the most roid rage, and he’s awful as a commentator. The idea that his imperception affects a team’s ability to stay within the cap is horrifying.

  - More than anything though, what’s to stop a team from playing the numbers rather than the game? If you’ve got a similar metric to most fantasy comps then what’s to stop a team like Melbourne, who have no finals aspirations this year from trotting out Billy Slater, Cameron Smith and Cooper Cronk for 5 minutes a game to greatly lower their averages for the next season? I think no matter what system you devise to derive a point value for a player, its open to exploitation.

  - Or if you’re using other measures of ability, everything becomes subjective. It might have benefited NSW to have Craig Bellamy avoid picking blokes like Steve Turner, Anthony Quinn, Brett White and Ryan Hoffman to keep their values down, but it would also be a cynical manipulation of the system. What about guys like Matt Cooper who get selected for rep teams only to snub them and not actually get the selection credited against them?

  It’s a nice thought to move to an entirely different system of ensuring an even playing field, but I think that point values will create even more headaches than the salary cap.

  Reply

• oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 11:26am | Report comment

  No wonder nothing ever gets acheived in rugby league. Reading some of the posts i have never seen so much effort put into working out why it would not work. Take the thought of fantasy right out of it, now you might play fantasy league, forget about that, its got nothing to do with a points system.
  Here is the idea of a points system, you rate players lets say 1-10. So you might have 10 backrowers sitting on 8 points, a few on 6 and maybe 1 on 9.
  Now your max points for your team might be 68, so you look at the chart to see how your rating is going, it might be sitting on 60, so you have a couple of players off contract, you can see a 9 point player is up for grabs, all you have to decide is do we take 3×7 point players, or the nine pointer with maybe 2 six pointers to top up your playing list.

  Yes the money for that player is also a issue, but it is a issue now.
  The thing i like about the point system is that we could see if a team is getting near the top of the salary cap, so we all know that this team will be shedding players the next year, and maybe looking to bring through some juniors.
  Its transperent, this is what people wanted to see.
  I think if you get the point system right, you can keep the comp pretty even. It will be hard to acheive at 1st, it will have a few problems to work out loss of form and other discretions, but it would work fine. Every postion needs to also be added to the Dally M awards,(2 back rowers, 2 front rowers,2 centres) more needs to be done to keep players showing form. If your losing form your likely to be dropped, like they do now.

  This is a yearly system, so players losing form and being replaced cannot affect your cap until next year. I see more possitives than negatives. Consistancy is a large part of players form, look at Jarrod Hayne, you could not rate him on 3 games, he might hit 10, but next 3 he might hit 6, but with his origin rating, he still would be rated a 9 player rating out of 10.

  You could use a 100 rating for players, like they do horses. Giddy-up.

  Reply

  • mushi said | July 23rd 2010 @ 12:06pm | Report comment

    Oikee that is how a logical thought works: you formulate the idea and then critique it. If it can’t stand up to the critique (and let s face it this system couldn’t stand up to gentle breeze if it was reinforced with steel) you present another solution.

    What these guys have come up with is laughably ineffective, sure it’s transparent and it’s new. But saying you can only have three guys with the same first initial is transparent and new …and just like this system is ineffective.

    As I said, I’ve spent a fair whack of my personal time over the past years to try and search for something that does get close to objectively evaluating players on a standalone basis. Now I’m no fields medal winner but I’m reasonably handy around a formula and a spreadsheet and I think this is an impossible task because so much is still subjective in player evaluation.

    And even if you could build such a formula to determine a player’s on field value it would be one hell of a complex one that I’m guessing you wouldn’t regard as transparent.

    Reply

    • oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 12:25pm | Report comment

      Yes but the clubs can still only spend what they can afford. Look hopefully the cap goes up abit over the next few years. Lets say you bought Hayne, and i like my cattle ring idea.Just expanding on the rugby league cattle ring, keep it lighthearted, and you can only send women to this auction each year to buy these fine cattle.. So you have women bidding on fine rugby league flesh, while having a good time. Its a idea, light-hearted, and would make for great publicity. Just a idea. The players could come out in the latest underware, ? Just a idea. Keeps women more involved and shows the lighter side of the game.

      So getting back to Hayne, you bought Hayne, and paid 1 million, blew your budget, you still have a salary cap. So your next few players might be utility players. Keep you under the points system. Now you might also have a few good juniors about to blow your points system next year, so eventually you might have to let a young player go, but he might be getting up around 6-7 points, so this leaves you space for buying another 7 pointer next year.

      Yes its abit complicated, but gee whiz, it would be fun to watch and you get to look at what you can do each year, unlike now, all we ever know, is that we are blowing the cap off the club, if we get caught.

      Reply

    • Brett McKay said | July 23rd 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment

      Oiks, it’s not about effort into disproving something, it’s thinking about the boundaries.

      Take your ’6pt backrowers’ scenario – the problem with the points rating is that that they only last a year, and would be reassessed for the next season. If you had a perfectly balanced squad points-wise, and a few of these 6pt backrowers on contracts of longer than one year, the danger is you’d have to shed these guys if they had a breakthrough year and were up-rated.

      At least multi-year contracts stay at the same value in each year. But that’s not to say that improvements aren’t needed; of course they are.

      Just assuming “everything will be fine” and doing nothing is probably worse than doing something and working it through..

      Reply

      • oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment

        So what Brett, of course cattle will go up , sometimes down, you need to move cattle around, the last thing a club wants is the same cattle year-in, year-out, you trying to bore the cow cockies.
        Each year your looking to improve the cattle you have. If you stay stagnet, you get left behind. This happens now, under a points system with my cattle ring, you make it more exciting.
        Look, i love the game now, but give me more. One thing you always have to do is improve your product, league has done this, you want it to stop. ?

        We need forward thinking, i am just throwing out ideas that i personally would like to see. I happen to love the game. That young Pommy, Sam Burgess, best thing to happen to league for years. He is a talented and very good kid to boot.

        Reply

        • Brett McKay said | July 23rd 2010 @ 2:07pm | Report comment

          you’ve effectively just killed the Hindmarshes, Lockyers, Gidleys and other one-clubbers from the game then Oiks. Players ‘previous clubs’ list will start reading like a Lonely Planet guide…

          Reply

          • oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 2:15pm | Report comment

            No Brett, those players come under the new loyalty payments about to be put in place. Every club would have these players, one clubmen, i am not saying to get rid of Gallon, i was making him a example. He might come under the royalty player. So there next player needs to be identified and bought.
            All i am saying is that clubs need to get smarter. Every club needs a star player or 2.

            Now back to Cronulla, where is there superstar. They could offload a few players and look for a superstar. Stop messing around with these weak cattle they keep buying.

          • Andrew said | July 23rd 2010 @ 5:00pm | Report comment

            What you do kill is the lets say 9 rated players, who is 30. You push him out of the game, although he has plenty to give, as teams don’t want to touch him due to his points worth, yet his age counts against him.

            So really you have the same problem as now.

            We had the NBA type salary cap suggestion the other day, and that is a much better method. Luxury taxes to allow the more financial teams to pay more, and the poorer clubs benefit at the same time (Though I would prefer that money be distributed to junior clubs instead).

        • mushi said | July 23rd 2010 @ 2:41pm | Report comment

          Oikee a man will go broke in trying to build a better mouse trap

          Reply
• 

  AndyRoo said | July 23rd 2010 @ 11:48am | Report comment

  Real cash just seems a much better measure of real market worth. Fantasy points just seem a complicated (and flawed) way of trying to get the same outcome as what we ahve now.

  The only thing this system seems to be trying to fix is the transperancy and clubs cheating the system, but in return you get a bucket load of more problems.

  You could also just go the A league way of raising the cap over what most can afford and then bringing in enough expetions to the point where their is no need to worry about the cap and instead it’s jsut a guide as to what the other clubs are spending and what you need to do to be competitive.

  Or the NRL dishes out the TV money to the players direct based on what the clubs register the contracts for.

  Reply

  • oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 12:04pm | Report comment

    Yes, the dishing out directly would be alright, but the point system is a clever way to keep fans interested at the end of the year, or during the year, whenever the players come to market.
    Maybe we should have a players ring,(horsey idea again), sell them off like cattle. Lot number 68, Jarrod Hayne, do i hear 600 thousand, yes we got 6, do i hear 7, going for 700 thousand, sold to the Broncos.

    Reply

• oikee said | July 23rd 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment

  Last point about the Cattle ring, i love this idea as you can tell, imagine the Buzz around the ring when a Mega-Star comes to market, Hayne would be in this class, also Thurston and even SBW if he came back to the game. I am getting tingly about this idea. What about the women sitting ringside, Champiagn flowing and cheering when he entered the ring, phones going off, bidding like mad, now thats tele drama.
  Its gold, pure gold.

  Reply

• Anakin said | July 23rd 2010 @ 7:51pm | Report comment

  I got bored half way through all these comments, because they were all similar and yet all seemed (those I read) to miss the main point. WHY should we look to build an even comp per se? As I alluded to in a previous post some time ago, the system(s) proposed encourage mediocrity. Why should clubs lose quality players they have developed to help out those incompetent clubs that cannot develop stars??We shouldn’t be pegging clubs down a level so others can compete, we should be looking to raise the level of the lower clubs. The two are not the same thing.

  That said, I don’t propose rich clubs be allowed to poach all the super-stars; quite the contrary. Clubs should be deterred from buying marquee players from others, yet in the same token, they should be rewarded for developing them .. and this doesnt mean it has to link to a 10 year loyalty clause at the one club. it doesnt always take that long to make a star player.

  Look at Copper Cronk for example. How many people knew of Cronk before he became a mainstay at the Storm, yet alone rated him amongst the NRL stars? The Storm develop him into a halfback of Test standard – pay him what he’s worth – and then suddenyl find themselves encumbered by the Salary Cap. I don’t want to turn this into a Storm bash-a-thon, so stop there anyone thinking of starting an anti-storm rant. But Cronk is certainly a good example of my case. If the storm can afford him, then they should be allowed to pay him whatever they want because they “made” him (same with Inglis). By the same token, maybe they shouldnt be allowed to splash out on a player already in the system. i’m not saying dont pay the player what he’s worth, because thats restraint of trade in my eyes, but there needs be a system in place that prevents the rich clubs buying up all the good guys FROM OTHERS.

  Case in point: I coached a club side – developed from the lower ranks – to be a force at the highest level. We copped cirticism because our players all became rep stars and we subsequenbtly dominated for years. “Its not fair” was the call; “theyre too strong, they should be disbanded!”. Why?!?!?! Why should my club, & my hard work, be undone because others didnt put in the development/coaching work that we had? Shouldt they simply step up to the plate? We didnt pinch all the best players, we developed our own over time who eventually took over the crop of superstars before them. How familiar is this to many NRL fans?

  By many thinkings, clubs arguably need to be constrained by their financial viability so they dont send themselves broke; but then again, why should we protect incompetent corporate businesses (which is really what NRL clubs are) because they cant manage themselves. they are supposedly professionally run organisation who pay their heirarchy good money to be run properly .. yet we hold their hand & tell them they’ll go broke unless someone stops them overspending. Pffft!

  Its an interesting scenario where the NRL supposedly have to rubber-stamp player contracts. How can the goverbing body of a competition dictate what a player within earns? Its ludicrous. All the arguments Ive heard bandied around the last few weeks are about clubs agreeing to play in the NRL, thus abiding by their rules etc etc .. this agreement nullifying any restraint of trade argument, BUT yet the NRL have a say in player contracts. Its a farked up roundabout!!!

  Lots to cover so maybe a bit jumbled above but hopefully my point got across ….

  Reply

• Jeff said | July 24th 2010 @ 9:47pm | Report comment

  Quote from Anakin “Case in point: I coached a club side – developed from the lower ranks – to be a force at the highest level. We copped cirticism because our players all became rep stars and we subsequenbtly dominated for years. “Its not fair” was the call; “theyre too strong, they should be disbanded!”. Why?!?!?! Why should my club, & my hard work, be undone because others didnt put in the development/coaching work that we had? Shouldt they simply step up to the plate? We didnt pinch all the best players, we developed our own over time who eventually took over the crop of superstars before them. How familiar is this to many NRL fans?”.

  This one paragraph makes more sense to me than the boatload of comments that I have read since early April. Please frame it and send it to David Gallop, He may want to hear what the REAL people think.

  Reply

  • Sam H said | July 29th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment

    In fairness, ‘real’ people may also think that the Storm plundering the best junior talent from Queensland without spending the decades needed to establish junior nurseries, ‘developing’ it from the late teens and then cheating in order to retain it isn’t exactly a beacon of the way rugby league clubs should conduct themselves.

    Reply