Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:19 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Sorry, who do you support again? Sam needs to work on his goal line defence before he can claim to be the finest anything the country has produced in the superleague era. He's terrific in attack but he still has a lot of development in defence yet to do.

Did you see Sams tackle on Wellens in the game at Widnes? superb defence.

SaintsFan wrote:

Saints already did. They lost one of them to Union and one to the NRL, without so much as a blink from the RFL. Thankfully, Roby stayed but Roby would have stayed anyway.

Do you honestly believe that Eastmond is/was anywhere near the standard of Sam? I was telling people on here four years ago just how good Sam was, and about the "problems" with Eastmond, despite his talent.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:25 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Did you see Sams tackle on Wellens in the game at Widnes? superb defence..

I could catch wello in 20 yards if i gave him a 10 yard start!

seriously though Sam is improving this side of his game and its easy to forget how young he still is and so learning the game and his new position.

Him committing to RL in this country is great news

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:31 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I could catch wello in 20 yards if i gave him a 10 yard start!

seriously though Sam is improving this side of his game and its easy to forget how young he still is and so learning the game and his new position.

Him committing to RL in this country is great news

It was the tackle on the line when he stopped Wellens who was at full speed and was running straight at Tomkins.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:33 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.

All this is doing is raising the expectations of players and the costs to SL Clubs.

This is not the answer.
If a club such as wigan want to pay their superstar sam a load of dosh to bribe him to stay then fair enough but unless all the other clubs agree to a salary cap increase then wigan will have to save salary money elsewhere.

Ignoring personalities and clubs, this is bound to favour the bigger clubs.

Is this not connected to the image rights issue that wigan and some other clubs have been caught out with and are now as a result finding it impossible to keep paying the wages they were paying?

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:34 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It was the tackle on the line when he stopped Wellens who was at full speed and was running straight at Tomkins.

Don't you mean wello was running that fast, sam couldn't get out of the way?

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:35 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It was the tackle on the line when he stopped Wellens who was at full speed and was running straight at Tomkins.

I saw Twiglett Gaskell run at Sam and sit him on his booty.

I wonder how the rest of the Wigan lads will find being made to train with someone who earns double what they do.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:01 pm  

This ruling needs massive clarification.

For example how many per club?
What % of the wage is over and above the cap?
How will this effect payments for other players?

Ie Tomkins gets £170000 for example. Is all that off the cap so allowing wigan to offer a deal to a player or players they could not afford other wise. Is £100, 000 on the cap £70000 off it, there fore freeing up £70000 for another player.

How do you judge what would have been offered under the cap to after the cap.

Minefield and can of worms spring to mind. Anyone got a link to the actual break down of this.

Also nice for RFL to step in on Wigans behalf, left it just the right length of time for Saints to have to let Graham go and spend a bucket load on a replacement for Eastmond.

Ah well normal service resumes.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:06 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Sorry, who do you support again? Sam needs to work on his goal line defence before he can claim to be the finest anything the country has produced in the superleague era. He's terrific in attack but he still has a lot of development in defence yet to do.

Saints already did. They lost one of them to Union and one to the NRL, without so much as a blink from the RFL. Thankfully, Roby stayed but Roby would have stayed anyway.

I've stated previously 'proper league fans' will be made up Sam's staying in the game.

I'll leave it there.

Re: Salary cap amendment : Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:13 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I saw Twiglett Gaskell run at Sam and sit him on his booty.

I wonder how the rest of the Wigan lads will find being made to train with someone who earns double what they do.

indeed. As a fullback Sam's 1on1 tackling will always be suspect as he's so small

Re: Salary cap amendment : Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:55 am  

bewareshadows wrote: This ruling needs massive clarification. For example how many per club? What % of the wage is over and above the cap? How will this effect payments for other players? Ie Tomkins gets £170000 for example. Is all that off the cap so allowing wigan to offer a deal to a player or players they could not afford other wise. Is £100, 000 on the cap £70000 off it, there fore freeing up £70000 for another player. How do you judge what would have been offered under the cap to after the cap. Minefield and can of worms spring to mind. Anyone got a link to the actual break down of this. Also nice for RFL to step in on Wigans behalf, left it just the right length of time for Saints to have to let Graham go and spend a bucket load on a replacement for Eastmond. Ah well normal service resumes. The ten year £50K dispensation came in when Wigan lost Andy Farell to Rugby Union. Saints have benefited by using this rule for Long, Cunningham and Wellens. I will agree with you that the rule needs clarification and should be seen here in the next few weeks. http://rfllive.dyndns.org/~rflmedia/doc ... on%20E.pdf

bewareshadows wrote: This ruling needs massive clarification. For example how many per club? What % of the wage is over and above the cap? How will this effect payments for other players? Ie Tomkins gets £170000 for example. Is all that off the cap so allowing wigan to offer a deal to a player or players they could not afford other wise. Is £100, 000 on the cap £70000 off it, there fore freeing up £70000 for another player. How do you judge what would have been offered under the cap to after the cap. Minefield and can of worms spring to mind. Anyone got a link to the actual break down of this. Also nice for RFL to step in on Wigans behalf, left it just the right length of time for Saints to have to let Graham go and spend a bucket load on a replacement for Eastmond. Ah well normal service resumes. The ten year £50K dispensation came in when Wigan lost Andy Farell to Rugby Union. Saints have benefited by using this rule for Long, Cunningham and Wellens. I will agree with you that the rule needs clarification and should be seen here in the next few weeks. http://rfllive.dyndns.org/~rflmedia/doc ... on%20E.pdf