So many people in here disingenously arguing that their enjoyment of the game is dependent on some nebulous and highly relative concept called 'quality' when they really mean - success.

Well, I guess the reactionary Pie element which has been crying like a whipped cur ever since the arrival of SL and the institution of some semblance of salary controls will be happy today.

What makes me laugh is the astonishingly poor grasp of fundamental supply-and-demand economics many of those arguing for a return to the bad old days seem to possess.

Although as someone who once delivered the "National Curriculum" to secondary school kids I can't say I'm the least bit surprised.

Can't enjoyment be dependent on both those things? I want success for Hull FC, but on a Thursday night at home watching the game on Sky, I want to see some decent rugby being played.



Despite you being Chief of RLfans, that doesn't automatically mean you get to arrogantly tell people what they really mean.

It might have been SOLD as a means of evening up the competition - but without further intervention into the games finances it could never hope to match the sales pitch.

The cap and associated tools have been far more successful in kickstarting the junior development program.

Even though money is incredibly tight we are now producing more young talent than at any point in the last thirty years. On the flipside, since the Australian game has been flooded with cash the hacks are now talking about an "unprecedented crisis" in junior development.

Just as we found out in the 80s - the Aussies are now discovering that huge injections of cash are often more trouble than they are worth.

When you can quantify "decent rugby" (real figures) and demonstrate how you and everyone else is being short-changed (real figures) purely because teams aren't being allowed to spend more I'll take you seriously.



I can and I did.

the SC has nothing to do with kickstarting youth development. Leeds and saints et al are benefitting from youth development structures put in place prior to youth development. If anything the SC is a disincentive to youth development as producing lots and lots of quality in an SC sport virtually guarantees you losing quality ayers you developed

The salary cap was brought in to prevent clubs from repeating Wigan's mistakes and encourage greater reliance on younger (and therefore cheaper) recruits rather than splashing cash over mediocre foreign has beens. Admittedly, it was a flawed model. But SL recognised this and augmented the cap with additional rules and mechanisms to further improve the sport's viability at junior level.

Now, we can argue about the successfulness of the cap as a tool toward this aim. But denying that it has any effect at all is just silly.



I'm sorry, Google Translate just throws up an error with the above.

it hasn't had that effect. At all. And it isn't silly to say so. It's well evidenced. For instance the 'golden generation' at leeds who won the GF were all brought in to Leeds prior to the salary cap. In fact most were first team players before the salary cap came in to effect.

Leeds and saints didn't put in place the youth development structures they now benefit from as a response to the salary cap. They already had them in place. Your statement is factually incorrect and demonstrably untrue.

The salary cap acts as a disincentive to youth development as it guarantees you produce quality players (ones you would otherwise keep) for your rivals.

Also as Dr Koukash (and earlier Moran and Davy) discovered. The SC stops new clubs challenging.

Please can you quantify 'kickstarting the youth development programme', and provide some real figures for 'producing more young talent'?

Thanks

Except that the cap as it currently exists provides extra allowances for clubs who produce players for the England and England Knights squads. It also enables clubs to exempt some salary for long-serving players, who will typically be ones you've produced yourself.

So in a very real, tangible way it does provide a stimulus for youth development. The more young players you get to go on and play at international level, the higher your salary cap figure.

How is the doc going to get around this..

"Clubs will only be allowed to sign a marquee player if they meet clearly-defined affordability criteria based around their income and expenditure."

Those numbers a negligible amount and fixed at that relatively low amount. It is a very maximum of 150k. About 7% of the total cap figure.

Also again. Long serving allowances disadvantage new clubs challenging.

Count up the number of players who have a realistic shout of making the Aussie or Kiwi squads today and compare that number with some of the garbage GB teams we were churning out ten or more years ago.

At a club level - Saints have performance metrics coming out of their ears (Mike Rush will give you chapter and verse on why the club's juniors are much better today should you so wish to ask). I'm sure this is the case at most SL clubs since measurement in myriad facets and sub-facets of the junior training program is one of the big advances in SL.

So [iyou[/i can't then?

Since when was the cap 2.1 million, or is that what Leeds think it is.

7.59493670886% is the exact amount if 'about 7%' is too vague for you.

Answer my question you pedant. Incidentally it is 175k max which is actually 9.19669669669669669669669% of the actual SC. So I hold with my opinion that this will not make much difference other than to make a sugar daddy not want to spend much on youth development as well.

As for clubs having to pass certain Income/expenditure rules (no details available) it could be that the likes of Wakefield and Salford may not be allowed a Marquee player

How funny would that be? Marwan has banged on about this for years, would be great to see him banned from using it. I can imagine his Twitter feed would be good reading.

So many posters in this thread who don't understand what the salary cap is for. The salary cap is to stop clubs from hoarding quality players and buying out the competition a la Man City, not to prevent teams from signing good players. For the Hull fan whinging, your club can also sign a marquee player, the only difference is that your chairman is unambitious.

No it's not. It's for protecting the clubs from their owners chasing short term gain and jeopardising the long term stability of the club.

The long service exemption is 50k. The ets exemption is 100k. That's a 150k. Of 1.975m (1.825+150k) that is about 7.6%

It's also not in the rules for next year. It's specified to apply to 2012,2013,2014 and 2015

What would be interesting would be people's opinions about how their club would use this.

I have no doubt Saints will use it on Roby and free up some cap room to spend on the squad. I can't see us chasing superstars with it.

This thread is nothing to do with the long service rule Smokey, so you are probably breaching the AUP by mentioning it. Now lets get this thread back on track eh

and Smokey can go and discuss the long service rule elsewhere

That's not what people are complaining about in this thread though, they are complaining about it making the competition uneven.

SC didn't make it even anyway as some clubs can't pay up to the cap.

If we don't have a marquee player rule, the best players of the lower clubs will still sign for the top clubs.

A marquee player rule gives SL some ammo to try and keep their best players and attract others. Some will still inevitably go to the NRL.

But it's about time SL had some ambition and stop the lower clubs holding the league back in this country while they catch up.