Magic Superbeetle wrote:
And everything within the document had/ has to be voted on by the chairmen - you can lead a horse to water and all that...
The home grown cap cap is a classic example. An intelligent way to increase the cap, and encourages doing in so which is beneficial to England, chairmen end up taking a vote on "golden tickets" and an argument over marquee (without wanting to reopen that debate, read average Aussies) signings for so long it hasn't been able to be implemented... Imagine how long any suggestions of the rfl assuming more control would
last...
These are all RFL suggestions and they dont need to be voted on by the clubs.
This is typical of the Nigel Woods RFL. They suggest something, implement it, then simply say 'dont blame us guv' when the obvious deficiencies are pointed out
The home grown cap is a classic example of the fact that Nigel Woods RFL cannot think something through.
In Isolation a home grown exemption/reward makes sense. It incentivises clubs to do what we want.
In Isolation reducing the number of academies but increasing their funding to turn out better players makes sense.
But those two things arent compatible. Reducing the number of academies to 10, means only 10 clubs will be able to bring through the requisite number of players of the requisite quality. They will be the only clubs able to use the home-grown exemption to its fullest. They will then be rewarded by being able to spend more on players because of that. This will create a huge gap between the 10 clubs with academies and the 14 without. Where the 14 without simply cannot compete as they will have less money to spend on bringing more players in, whilst operating under the same cap but without the discounts.