Scrapping the anti-tampering rule allowing players to negotiate with rival clubs in the final year of their contracts and replacing it with an official trade period would prevent a repeat of the coaching merry-go-around which saw five clubs change coaches in recent weeks.
That is the reasoning behind a proposal expected to be discussed at a meeting of NRL club CEOs in Sydney on Wednesday, which will also consider extending the anti-tampering restrictions to coaches.
Both issues have been listed on the agenda for the meeting after the fallout from the off-season coaching merry-go-round sparked by Ivan Cleary's move from Wests Tigers to Penrith and Brisbane's decision to part ways with Wayne Bennett next year.
The Panthers made it clear they wanted Cleary following their sacking of Anthony Griffin a month before the finals and the Tigers released him from the remaining two years of his contract after he signed a three-year deal with Penrith starting in 2021.
The Cleary saga coincided with South Sydney coach Anthony Seibold's decision to pursue interest from the Broncos for 2020, which prompted the Rabbitohs to sign Bennett.
With the Tigers appointing New Zealand coach Michael Maguire and Manly signing Des Hasler to replace Trent Barrett, five NRL clubs have changed coaches in recent weeks.
Tigers expect finals finish under Maguire
While a Seibold-Bennett swap for next season is yet to be confirmed, the coaching upheaval has created uncertainty about the future of players across the NRL and a roster shake-up is expected at a number of clubs.
Tigers CEO Justin Pascoe has suggested coaches should be bound by similar anti-tampering rules to players, who cannot negotiate with rival clubs until the final year of their contract.
"I think in order to protect a lot of different aspects of your business we should have the same rules for coaches as for players," Warriors chief executive Cameron George said.
"I think it would be in the best interests of our fans and protecting our sponsors, and for recruitment and retention, and how that all operates. If it is good enough for our players to have to wait until November 1 it should be good enough for coaches too."
A number of other clubs believe anti-tampering rules should be extended to include coaches but there is also a view that such a move would have little impact and allowing players to negotiate with rival clubs in the final year of their contract is the cause of the coaching changes.
If the same restrictions for players were imposed on coaches, Cleary would not have been able to sign with Penrith for another 12 months but Seibold and Bennett only had to wait until November 1 to change clubs.
Instead, some clubs want the NRL to consider the introduction of an AFL-style trade or player transfer windows similar to those which operate in football.
"The November 1 negotiation date with no transfer or trade window is the problem," one club boss told NRL.com.
There is a belief among some clubs that a transfer window would benefit the game on a number of levels, as the AFL trade period generates massive interest during the off-season.
However, other club CEOs questioned how a transfer window would work and whether it could be policed properly.
Similar concerns exist around anti-tampering rules, as Australian prop David Klemmer has asked Canterbury for a release to join Newcastle next season while still being contracted to the Bulldogs for a further two years.