Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:55 pm  

What a joke. Either raise the Salary Cap or keep it as it is. Good old RFL, muddying the waters once again.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:04 pm  

Carlos Alberto wrote:

What a joke. Either raise the Salary Cap or keep it as it is. Good old RFL, muddying the waters once again.

But there's already the ten year service (up to £50K dispensation) and and an allowance for your highest paid locally produced player. This new ruling is just an extension/expansion of those. Saints could now hopefully use it to keep Foster/Lomax or Gaskell in RL.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:10 pm  

Leave the cap alone and if a player signs a five year deal then wants a move let him rot in the reserves till the end of his contract. Once again Wigan say jump and the RFL ask how high.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:11 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

It's not Tomkins I have a problem with. But you can guarantee that Wigan will announce further signings made possible by this change. The Sun today says they're in the process of signing an NRL centre. That's not right. If Sam takes their current squad above the cap that's one thing but then letting them add to it is wrong.

It's a funny thing, I'm all for adjusting the cap to allow the retention of top homegrown talent but at the same time that should not create a loophole to allow us to flood the SL with more imports. I'd like to see fewer but better quality overseas players blended with our own talent... not the HKR route basically.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:16 pm  

roader wrote:

Leave the cap alone and if a player signs a five year deal then wants a move let him rot in the reserves till the end of his contract. Once again Wigan say jump and the RFL ask how high.

It's not like that anymore, the days of Wigan having influence over the RFL disappeared when uncle Mo slithered off. I think the RFL are trying to do something to stop a full scale talent drain. After his show against the Aussies I wouldnt be shocked to see the union leeches trying to pinch Ryan Hall.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:25 pm  

The Chief wrote:

Wonder how many marquee signings Wires can make before the start of next season?

Also begs the question, why were Saints not allowed to do this to keep Kyle Eastmond in RL?

Or keep jammer.

Everyone is talking about the fight to keep players from union IMO the nrl will be the biggest threat to super league in 2013 when they put the salary cap up!

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:36 pm  

It should be ONE player per team and that player must come through the clubs academy. Roby at Saints?

Or if we want to be really adventurous that ONE player could be a Rugby Union "convert"
That would set the cat among the pigeons.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:38 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

It's an absolute effing joke. How are they sticking with a £1,7m ceiling if they are giving 'allowances' for certain players?

It just means they are increasing the cap. Clubs cannot afford to do so.

*some* clubs cannot afford to do so.

How do clubs get more money? Sponsors and TV rights. What attracts sponsors and TV rights? Marquee players. The money available to the game and cap have a complex relationship. Set the cap too low and you create a situation where 'not having enough money' becomes self fulfilling, because you can't attract the players (and thus sponsors) in the first place.

I think the people that run the RFL are fools, have done for years, ever since Wood was in charge...BUT, even I get some hope from all this and say 'well done'. I truly thought they'd just plough on with their idiotic strategy of waiting for Wakefield to 'catch up' ( if their own town doesn't want to watch them, its not like they haven't been given enough chances, bring back relegation and give Championship clubs a reason to excel). I hope this is the start of new dawn of sanity at Red Hall. Let's see.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:41 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It should be ONE player per team and that player must come through the clubs academy. Roby at Saints?

Or if we want to be really adventurous that ONE player could be a Rugby Union "convert"
That would set the cat among the pigeons.

Have the RFL clarified if it is only for 1 player per team? I sincerely hope so.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:41 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It should be ONE player per team and that player must come through the clubs academy. Roby at Saints?

Or if we want to be really adventurous that ONE player could be a Rugby Union "convert"
That would set the cat among the pigeons.

What if a club produces 3/4 top class players? They would then only be able to have one as their "star" player and would be punished for going with youth as other teams would take them.

I still think the idea of home grown players salary not counting 100% on the cap would be a better way forward. Example - home grown players salary only counting 60% on the cap.

That way teams will invest in youth more.