Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:08 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

He makes sense on this for once. But you do get the nagging doubts creeping in that he just doesn't want to spend the money on one.

He'd probably make Paul Wellens our marquee player.

I'd rather the tightwad spent a few quid (£30 million) on a new stadium than a washed up Ozzie.

Oh wait a min....

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:08 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

I'd rather the tightwad spent a few quid (£30 million) on a new stadium than a washed up Ozzie.

Oh wait a min....

He signed Lance Hohaia, Josh Perry and Anthony Laffranchi instead.

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:14 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

He signed Lance Hohaia, Josh Perry and Anthony Laffranchi instead.

You see he even sign internationals within the cap, so no need for a marquee rule

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:23 am  

Saddened! wrote:

He makes sense on this for once. But you do get the nagging doubts creeping in that he just doesn't want to spend the money on one.

He'd probably make Paul Wellens our marquee player.

And this comment disproves any sort of "just because teams have a marquee exemption doesn't mean they'd have to use it" argument that those in favour are stating.

As saddened has so wonderfully shown, either bring in a marquee, else be lambasted from your own fans about either being a) cheap or b) poor. Even if it didn't make financial sense to. Those who want to just throw money around are trying to make a rod for the backs of the chairmen that don't.

And after years of turning around the financial prospects of saints, and covering the losses himself, and paying off all out debt, and building us a stadium, and top class training facilities - as well as a youth system capable of producing the very best, if eamon doesn't want to spend an extra x on a gimmick "marquee" then I'm still more than fine with that - out of all those who are conceivably available in the NRL this year, jammer would be my pick for a "marquee" anyway, and home grown cap cap covers him.

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:34 am  

McManus is looking at it as a business and what's sustainable for the future which is obviously trying to get enough home grown talent to be successful. Obviously you can't field a team of home grown as that will never happen so getting the mix of home grown, British and overseas is vital for the future of rugby league.

The DR is not thinking about the future of rugby league, he's thinking of himself and Salford. He doesn't care how many players we lose, how many teams go bust, all he wants is for Salford.

That's where McManus shows his class and the dr shows he's a selfish rich idiot who's not got the game at heart.

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:43 am  

St pete wrote:

McManus is looking at it as a business and what's sustainable for the future which is obviously trying to get enough home grown talent to be successful. Obviously you can't field a team of home grown as that will never happen so getting the mix of home grown, British and overseas is vital for the future of rugby league.

The DR is not thinking about the future of rugby league, he's thinking of himself and Salford. He doesn't care how many players we lose, how many teams go bust, all he wants is for Salford.

That's where McManus shows his class and the dr shows he's a selfish rich idiot who's not got the game at heart.

In many ways I agree with you BUT he has to do what's best for Salford. It would take years for him to build Salford up through their junior systems (academies) and he started to do that, just look at their U15 and u16 playing squad and from where they have been recruited.

I don't have a problem with one marquee player every two years for a club. It's their money and if they chose to spend it then so be it. I remember way back Salford signing David Watkins, and my and my now wife travelled down to Salford to watch him make his debut. His signing on fee was paid back in two or three games. And it also attracted BIG media interest and fans from other clubs went too see him at their home grounds.

If you want to be radical. how about you can only spend over the cap if you as a club make a profit. Financially that would make sense wouldn't it?

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:47 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

In many ways I agree with you BUT he has to do what's best for Salford. It would take years for him to build Salford up through their junior systems (academies) and he started to do that, just look at their U15 and u16 playing squad and from where they have been recruited.

I don't have a problem with one marquee player every two years for a club. It's their money and if they chose to spend it then so be it. I remember way back Salford signing David Watkins, and my and my now wife travelled down to Salford to watch him make his debut. His signing on fee was paid back in two or three games. And it also attracted BIG media interest and fans from other clubs went too see him at their home grounds.

If you want to be radical. how about you can only spend over the cap if you as a club make a profit. Financially that would make sense wouldn't it?

I agree, he should do what's best for Salford but he shouldn't be spouting crap that it's for the good of the game because it's not, it's for him and Salford.

He's got no class at all.

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:46 pm  

But Mac's view whilst good for the game is also good for Saints and the incumbent powers.

I think there has to be an element of Marquee for clubs without the years of SL stability to boost their chances earlier.

The club grown route would take years to reach the same heights in the mean time those clubs get battered by those who can spend far more on quality club grown players. They lose fans and get relegated.

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:57 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

But Mac's view whilst good for the game is also good for Saints and the incumbent powers.

I think there has to be an element of Marquee for clubs without the years of SL stability to boost their chances earlier.

The club grown route would take years to reach the same heights in the mean time those clubs get battered by those who can spend far more on quality club grown players. They lose fans and get relegated.

Life's a bitch

Re: Mac's views on the "Marquee" rule : Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:59 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

But Mac's view whilst good for the game is also good for Saints and the incumbent powers.

I think there has to be an element of Marquee for clubs without the years of SL stability to boost their chances earlier.

The club grown route would take years to reach the same heights in the mean time those clubs get battered by those who can spend far more on quality club grown players. They lose fans and get relegated.

We've had the likes of Barrett, buderus, Patten etc in our game AND in salary cap - the only ones who are really out of viability in our cap are those looking $1m+ a year - and even when were were in the financially strong position we never saw them come over (what I would of given for fittler to sign for saints and play alongside sculthorpe!)

It's also easy to forget the "marquees" who fail - look at josh perry - came over after playing for Australia in the Anzac test, grand final winner done it all. Spectacular flop. Bringing in a marquee has the exact same risk, with a massive increase in the cap essentially.

The club grown gives an advantage to the incumbents - but surely given the fact 3 clubs (saints Wigan and Leeds) provided 56% of the England (60% including those who were kicked out) so why shouldn't they be rewarded? They only get it because they are actively improving our international team.

The marquee exemption is only good for the incumbents + Salford too.