I suggested on C&W that it may be worth each team being allowed one player, who only counts 33% of his salary towards the cap, thus allowing the better off clubs to make sure they can hold on to at least one start each, fending off the clutches of Union. Alternatively, they could use that to make space on the cap for another player, but that's their choice.

Although Roby and Graham would have been the obvious choice for saints, if deterring Union is the main goal, you may find clubs saving this spot for backs like the departed eastmond and now, Johnny Lomax.

As for Rogue's question about Eastmond. He had the skills, rugby brain and physical abilities to be as good as, if not better than Sam. Problem is he has a fraction of the heart (which, lets face it, sam has in spades).
You'll see him on BBC2 next year, ripping it up in England's 7 a side team, as H Paul did. He'll probably make his money, but no er will count him as achieving a fraction of what he was capable of. Meanwhile (hopefully), our other young backs will develop into real stars of Rugby League.

BINGO

sam rumoured to be on £250,000 - £300,000 a year now.

I'm sure there will be some interesting contract negotiations over the next few seasons now for premium players.

To the people who are saying that it will just benefit the big clubs...

What would you rather have: a poorer standard of competition, whereby every team is equal or would you rather try and keep the best players playing here?

There is always going to be a disparity between the 'bigger' clubs and the 'lesser' clubs, that's life I'm afraid. It's up to the RFL to try and do everything in their power to try and improve our sport by keeping our best players.

It's a no-brainer for me. I'm afraid that some fans just can't accept that it is to the advantage of Wigan.

Double post

It also gets certain clubs, who have been flouting the cap off the hook. They can now stop pretending.

It's a shame that the Sam Tomkins announcement has sort of hidden the really big announcement at Wigan this week. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=511931

It's a shame that the Sam Tomkins announcement has sort of hidden the really big announcement at Wigan this week. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=511931

you're right...... it wouldn't have done wigan any favours being caught cheating the cap AGAIN would it.

As a collective group of fans are we really that one eyed and biased to not be able to see this is a great thing for RL. Yeah, Wigan were the first to take this rule to their advantage, so what? The rule applies to each and every club who can take advantage of it if they wish.

Would you have been happier if the RFL did nothing and talents like Tomkins were lost to other competitions or codes, closely followed by our other top players? Yeah we'd certainly have parity then, everyone would be rubbish. Unfortunately this dream of having all 14 clubs equal in talent and ability isn't going to happen, that's life, not everybody is equal.

I think it is a fantastic move by the RFL which will help in preventing a talent drain from SL, I'm sure you all won't be moaning when the rule benefits us to help us keep Roby, Lomax or one of our other stars.

There's a lot of hot air on this thread about a rule change nobody knows anything about but a few sentences from a press release. I don't agree with an increase for homegrown players as I do think it benefits the big clubs before the smaller ones at the moment, however that does at least give the smaller clubs something to aim for.

I'm a bit wary of this 'marquee' terminology though. Who determines a marquee player? That's a subjective decision that is open to too much interpretation.

The thing is though, if the RFL sit back and did nothing it is effectively punishing the big clubs by having their top players cherry picked. We can't blindly just say everything must be equal if it is to the overall detriment of the competition and our product.

Other clubs such as Wakefield and Castleford could be classed as 'smaller clubs' but they have fantastic youth teams with a hotbed of talent to scout from, this rule should benefit them as both of these clubs are now spending near to the cap.

Wakefield are spending to the cap?

Not one player that has gone over for the money would have ever received it in RL due to the cash restraints of the clubs, not the cap. Having an allowance for one or two players is a solution that is on iffy ground for me (that's without seeing the actual rule). The one thing I think should have happened was that the cap should have been raised in line with inflation every couple of years. £1.6m buys a lot less now than it did 10 years ago.

to answer an earlier question.
Eastmond didnt deserve it, Tomkins imo does.

As I understand it, for next season under Andrew Glover, Wakefield have substantially increased there spending on personnel. It may not be to the extent of the cap but certainly a lot more than they was. Of course, I may be wrong though.

I agree with every point you have made to be quite honest but I do think this new ruling, if it is as we suspect, will help in fending off RU or the NRL in terms of the cap not restricting clubs from defending themselves.

Why didn't eastmond deserve it ?

At least Eastmond saw out his contract, unlike some.

Hardly played, showed little commitment and you get bugger all for him...

Can I state that this rule does sod all to stop any alleged player drain.

The problem is RL has less revenue than RU.

This effective increasing of the cap does nothing what so ever to increase revenues.

All we have done is make it more pricey for a few chosen RL players to be prized away. Once again we have confused hype with the health of the game.

Does this expand viewership
does this expand the geographical nature of the game
does it increase the tv deal
does it stop fans in Wigan from leaving Rl for union or the NRL

In my opinion it does none of the above. What we have done is short term and short focused and as with all simple solutions creates a minor feel good feeling for a few influential people but does nothing to address underlying issues.

Can some one tell me how many people have actaully stopped watching SL either in person or on tv when individuals find alternate employment to RL?

A far bigger impact on crowds . sponsorship and revenue streams is the ressession. Other than the ressession viewing and attendance figures still performe well.

I'm sure lots will say something had to be done to save x y z player because they are important to the game. But I'm yetto see hard evidence of fans following players as individuals rather than clubs.

But it allows clubs with the ability to spend over the cap the room to offer extra payments to one star player, such as Tomkins so yes it does help in stopping the player drain. Generally the teams who can't spend up to the cap won't have the star players so it won't effect them too much.

Do you really think 300k will stop Union if they really want a player.The RFU have coffers deeper than any RL club and if they wanted a player they would open those coffers and get him. £1 million a year would be easy for the right player.

This rule does nothing about the real issue.

i don't know why they didn't just raise the cap by 300k and save all this myther.

Without reading through 7 pages of people complaining has this 'rule' change been communicated? I'd only have a problem if it was a 1 off for a Wigan player if the same rule applies to all teams in a fair manner I have no issue. Sam Tomkins staying in League is good for the game (even if he has a dubious attitude at time)

The timing of the rule change is a major issue for me (I'm presuming it's only just been introduced, rather than all the other SL clubs choosing not to take advantage of it until now). Off the top of my head:

Saints have lost Graham and Eastmond, both of whom are homegrown and both of whom could be considered marquee players.

Salford have lost Ratchford. Homegrown and, you could argue, was Salford's top player and therefore 'marquee'.

I'm sure the ability to chuck more money at these players to persuade them to re-sign with their respective clubs would have been welcomed. Maybe they'd have gone anyway.
Maybe not; money talks, ask Joel.

And Sam, for that matter... all this talk of loyalty, but it takes a new rule allowing him to earn record breaking amounts of cash to persuade him to stick out an extra 3 years (for which he was already contracted).

But what if there is a star player at a club that cannot afford to spend as Wigan clearly can? What happens then? Does this sop to Wigan stop such a player from being enticed to RU or the NRL? The salary cap was brought in to stop exactly what Wigan are now doing.

Wigan and Leeds. The biggest mouths in English RL. When they yell jump, the RFL asks how high and then wets its collective pants.

Bingo.

But then that would have been slated as too small a rise...

The only real thing wrong thing about this new rule is that wigan have come out and informed us about it.

Ineptness of the highest order from the RFL, letting people find out about it via a new contract for sam tomkins and a direct quote from IL.