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.

Unambitious? Why because he voted against the rule putting faith in a salary cap and academies. Our owner has invested a hell of a lot in training facilities for the first team and younger players. Something our last owners wouldn't put a penny too!

Give it a couple of years and people will be moaning when it goes t!ts up and the status quo hasn't changed and Salford are still attracting no more than 3500 fans

It doesn't affect spending on any of those things. You're acting as though the salary cap has been removed altogether. We're talking about an exemption for one player, with huge incentives for that player to be home-grown by the club. Your club could've used the rule to keep Tom Briscoe or Tom Lineham. There's no possible downside to this.

Another death nail in the "development" system of the game in this country. Wasting money on 1 or 2 players whilst the HARD WORK of training and developing players is left to hard working volunteers with little or no help from the "senior" clubs.
Well that's what everyone seems to want so the game carries on.
It's sad to see the slow demise of a game in this country which with the right thinking could have taken the country by storm. The opportunities have been there but then blinkers always seem to have the RL fashion of choice.

Perhaps the death of the 'development system' in this country is necessary. Its hardly like its doing brilliantly.

Seen a it about people arguing that 'clubs can't afford an u21's or reserves but can afford this' but why are we assuming those are good things to spend our money on?

It seems crazy to me that we have on one hand worries about the gap between SL and the lower leagues, and on the other a game struggling for visibility and coverage, yet people are arguing we shouldnt bring in big names until we fund a competition that takes the best young players from the lower leagues to put them in to a competition people wont watch.

I'm not acting as if the salary cap has been removed, if anything id rather the cap was raised a little more.

Far as I'm aware tom lineham still plays for us and as for briscoe he had the chance to re-sign but left it too late

No top class Aussies new Zealand er is going to give up mega bucks to come to Britain to earn less than they are getting back home. It will be more average overseas or the ones like Cronk seeking a last big pay day

This seems to be another situation like the free play rule, people getting upset about something because they don't really understand it properly despite it being fairly straightforward. Do you really think clubs are going to use £175,000 of their salary cap (and pay even more) to sign 'average overseas' players? And if they do that then it's their own fault for being stupid and wasting their money.

As I said, you don't have to start throwing hundreds of thousands of Aussie dollars at players from the NRL (although no doubt that's what your club will do because they don't seem to be able to manage themselves properly). You could've used this rule to keep the likes of Briscoe without impacting the rest of your squad, or use it to resign Danny Brough or somebody. Or if Hull happen to develop any good players in the future with all this apparent spending on the youth system, you would actually be able to make an effort to keep hold of them instead of them going to the NRL or somewhere else. Again, there are literally no downsides to this rule being introduced. Use your brain.