Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:05 am  

Grimmy wrote:

I'm all for this move. It isn't going to seriously impact British stars coming through but is going to allow Super League to attract top players which could really help increase the profile of our sport over here

I'm still unsure what impact it would actually have. A big name Aussie will be on good money anyway because they already have more than twice our SC, and they would be unlikely to sacrifice Origin to sign for a SL club. The best we can probably hope for is a big name Kiwi or an ex Origin player at the back end of their career.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:52 am  

WARRIORCRAIG wrote:

I think there needs to be more incentives for producing homegrown talent, perhaps a certain % of a club-trained player's salary is exempt based on number of appearances (e.g. 5% exempt after 50 appearances, 10% after 100 etc.), as well as similar exemptions based on England caps. This would at least give the club that has invested in a player since they were 15/16 year old some ammunition to make them a better offer to retain them should they start to receive bigger and better offers from other clubs/codes.

I thought this was introduced a couple of years ago. Those selected in the England side only counted as £100k on the cap regardless of their salary for the year(s) they were named in the England squad. This was publicised the other year and I think it was when we still had Mossop who had been selected for England amongst a whole host of others such as Josh.

I know the RFL and Wigan aren't great in recent times at keeping us updated on these particular issues and rules but as far as I'm aware this hasn't changed.

This also coincides with the RU player allowance and I think there may be one other form of dispensation on the cap relating to homegrown talent however I'm not sure what that is as there's so bloody many!.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:31 am  

Th'Observer wrote: I thought this was introduced a couple of years ago. Those selected in the England side only counted as £100k on the cap regardless of their salary for the year(s) they were named in the England squad. This was publicised the other year and I think it was when we still had Mossop who had been selected for England amongst a whole host of others such as Josh. I know the RFL and Wigan aren't great in recent times at keeping us updated on these particular issues and rules but as far as I'm aware this hasn't changed. This also coincides with the RU player allowance and I think there may be one other form of dispensation on the cap relating to homegrown talent however I'm not sure what that is as there's so bloody many!. It's all here http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 The international one is £10k per player in the ETS up to a maximum of £100k per club that is exempt

Th'Observer wrote: I thought this was introduced a couple of years ago. Those selected in the England side only counted as £100k on the cap regardless of their salary for the year(s) they were named in the England squad. This was publicised the other year and I think it was when we still had Mossop who had been selected for England amongst a whole host of others such as Josh. I know the RFL and Wigan aren't great in recent times at keeping us updated on these particular issues and rules but as far as I'm aware this hasn't changed. This also coincides with the RU player allowance and I think there may be one other form of dispensation on the cap relating to homegrown talent however I'm not sure what that is as there's so bloody many!. It's all here http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 The international one is £10k per player in the ETS up to a maximum of £100k per club that is exempt

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:17 pm  

In principal, Im against the idea of a marquee exemption from the salary cap. The competitiveness of the NRL is what makes it great. And with the number of Super League teams being reduced next season and the top of the table tighter than ever, I feel as if the salary cap is only just starting to show its positive value.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:53 pm  

Pacific wrote:

In principal, Im against the idea of a marquee exemption from the salary cap. The competitiveness of the NRL is what makes it great. And with the number of Super League teams being reduced next season and the top of the table tighter than ever, I feel as if the salary cap is only just starting to show its positive value.

The salary cap has been a total failure in its objectives. We have had it long enough in the same form to say that based on the evidence. The same teams dominate the trophies and clubs still go bust. It is a demonstrable failure.

I see no difference this season than the last 10 so I don't see how it is showing any positive value especially with Bradford where they are.

The format of the league next season and the cap are also not linked. You would expect the league to be contested better to avoid missing the cut but its' going to be the same teams at the top.

The problem has always been a lack of money, not lack of a salary cap. That is the poorer clubs could not even afford to pay to the salary cap we have now so unless it had been set so low as to basically turn the game into a semi-professional one once again, it was never going to deliver on the promises.

Next season all the SL clubs will get £1.825m off Sky thus they will all be able to pay to the salary cap but this won't transform the competition overnight but what it does mean is all the clubs should be able to afford a marquee signing. They must all be having to fund at least some wages off their own bat so getting all the £1.825m wage bill met by Sky should mean that money is free for a marquee player. If they can all afford one, which I am sure would be the case, I fail to see the problem with the idea.

Also marquee players do't need to be imports. Making someone like Sam Tomkins your marquee player could possibly price him out of the NRL market because while they have a much higher salary cap they do actually spend it so don't necessarily have loads of cap space free.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:08 pm  

DaveO wrote:

The salary cap has been a total failure in its objectives. We have had it long enough in the same form to say that based on the evidence. The same teams dominate the trophies and clubs still go bust. It is a demonstrable failure.

I see no difference this season than the last 10 so I don't see how it is showing any positive value especially with Bradford where they are.

The format of the league next season and the cap are also not linked. You would expect the league to be contested better to avoid missing the cut but its' going to be the same teams at the top.

The problem has always been a lack of money, not lack of a salary cap. That is the poorer clubs could not even afford to pay to the salary cap we have now so unless it had been set so low as to basically turn the game into a semi-professional one once again, it was never going to deliver on the promises.

Next season all the SL clubs will get £1.825m off Sky thus they will all be able to pay to the salary cap but this won't transform the competition overnight but what it does mean is all the clubs should be able to afford a marquee signing. They must all be having to fund at least some wages off their own bat so getting all the £1.825m wage bill met by Sky should mean that money is free for a marquee player. If they can all afford one, which I am sure would be the case, I fail to see the problem with the idea.

Also marquee players do't need to be imports. Making someone like Sam Tomkins your marquee player could possibly price him out of the NRL market because while they have a much higher salary cap they do actually spend it so don't necessarily have loads of cap space free.

The most important part of this monolith of text is:

DaveO wrote:

If they can all afford one...

You seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you argue that there is a distinct lack of money in the sport but then you claim that it's feasible for clubs to spend significantly more on the salary cap. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

All in all though, you do present a good argument and I understand that I'm most probably in a minority with my opinion on this topic.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:38 pm  

DaveO wrote:

snip

Two things:

a) The salary cap being brought in to stop clubs going bust is a myth - admittedly a myth purported by the rfl when they first brought in the cap, but a myth none the less. It came about because the rfl were too ignorant/ lacked the intelligence to notice anything beyond mass over spending on players. What bringing in the cap has done is exposed the true problem within the sport of rank mismanagement on every level. In short, clubs never were going bust because of overspending on players, but the terrible businesses behind that.

b) I agree entirely marquees dont need to be from overseas - and in fact I'm all for regulation to be brought in to stop us losing our top talent (retain what you can before you go raiding and all that) - but that could all be achieved by the home grown cap cap of limiting home grown players salarys to 100k - something that was proposed by the rfl and swept under the rug by certain chairmen because it didnt suit their agenda.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:24 pm  

WARRIORCRAIG wrote:

I'm still unsure what impact it would actually have. A big name Aussie will be on good money anyway because they already have more than twice our SC, and they would be unlikely to sacrifice Origin to sign for a SL club. The best we can probably hope for is a big name Kiwi or an ex Origin player at the back end of their career.

Those, or big name british players like Burgess or Tomkins. I just look back at some of the guys we had in the early 00s and can't stand thinking we could no longer attract that calibre of player to the league. Does anyone think that without this we would ever see the next Vainikolo/Lyon/Renouf/Richards/Barrett? IMO they would all have stayed in the NRL bar possibly Lyon because he had fallen out of love with the game. That's not to mention our best British players who may well have left for the money

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:08 pm  

WARRIORCRAIG wrote:

Until we're in a situation where the majority of teams are comfortably spending the SC every year a simple increase is unlikely, therefore we need to make the most out of SC exemptions to keep top players in SL.

Every club should be spending up to the salary cap next year when it is fully covered by the next TV deal. Still no word of any increase though. No matter how much extra money clubs get the salary cap never seems to move anyway as it is not in their interests to do so.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:08 pm  

Pacific wrote:

The most important part of this monolith of text is:

DaveO wrote:

If they can all afford one...

You seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you argue that there is a distinct lack of money in the sport but then you claim that it's feasible for clubs to spend significantly more on the salary cap. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I actually wrote "If they can all afford one, which I am sure would be the case..."

So there is no contradiction.

As I said earlier in the post this year clubs will have to be finding money themselves to pay players as the Sky money does not cover the cap and I can't believe we have a SL outfit who will be in SL next season (i.e. not Bradford or London!) who are not putting their own money toward the players wage bill. If they are doing that then as next season they get all the wages paid by the Sky money, they should have a surplus they could use toward the marquee player.