the Graham move is not about the dosh, he wants a crack at NRL, although may be thinking "what have I done?" following last weekend.

this may help Stains hang onto Lomax or Roby though

warrington does have a good youth set up now..... and we should see the results over the next few seasons...But that's not the point here is it?

Anyway.... the details of the salary cap change hasn't even been made public yet.. I am expecting it to be a player that has been at a club for x amount of years can count... which would mean we could do what you have done... remove one of our top earners from the cap and use the cap space for someone else.

if you think Warrington wont also benefit from this new rule you're mistaken.... its the clubs at the lower end that will suffer.... The clubs that cant already meet the cap.

But like you said.....It's great news for rugby league, as it means we have a greater chance of keeping our better players.... sometimes players will want to move though.. like Graham wanting to go and prove himself in the best league in the world... that move wasn't motivated by money like Joel Tomkins move was.

Reply to Morleydeck chair.

The problem is some teams do not spend to the cap so sorry but sod them now. If they can not spend to the max of the cap then they should not be dictating what others can. Its so annoying but its obvious after Saturday England is closing the gap on the OZ team wether Engalnd have improved or the OZ team is not as good as made out. But if you lose 1 or 2 top players to union only to keep the structure of the cap then England will get left behind for a generation again.

The top 5-6 or SL will be the same for the next decade so i can not see the benefit of not allowing the change that has been mentioned. If a team can afford it and keep quality in the game its better than the status quo of player drain and poorer quality in SL.

I agree with you... the salary cap was 'supposed' to create parity... It has just restricted the top 4/5 teams (apart from warrington as we dont keep to the cap)... Teams should be left to run themselves as they see fit.

The point i was trying to make is that premium SL players will now look at sams salary and think 'i fancy some of that'.

Maybe this new ruling will see the beginning of the end for the salary cap.

Whilst some will talk about the salary cap being there to even the compettion, I think this is a minor function. For me, its main purpose is to stop clubs getting carried away and ending up with a salary blow out, trying desperately to buy success on the field.
There need to be a forced ceiling on clubs spending. We're not a big enough sport to allow clubs to crucify themselves.
If SL clubs are allowed 1 marqee player to have dispensation, then I reckon 10 clubs would be able to manage that. That's 10 british players that could be secured in our competetion.

its a pity that all this bollox has gone on after our Sky negotiation. Surely Sky don't want to see their product quality decline with our best payers being tempted away?

Didn't Iestyn Harris go to Union for £1.5Mil?

Which is exactly what I have been trying to explain to ertain posters for the last 2 days but some people cant seem to get there head around this.

My cousin played at school with a former England captain. They stay in touch.
He reckons that said player was very open and said once he made the England train-on squad, it was an extra 100k a year in the bank, and that was before winning a cap.

Yep.

Really good news, look forward to seeing him in an England shirt for the next 5 years

And highly likely, selection for the England train-on squad is included in Joel's contract. At least, this was Stevo's view when he was interviewed on telly about Kyle Eastmond's defection.

Believe it or not, just because I mentioned something once about what Lenegan said doesn't mean I've become some kind of unofficial spokesman for him when you want a quote.

However if Mr Lenegan is reading this and wants to pay me for my trouble I'll happily give you the quote you so obviously need.

I for one don't give a monkey's what the impact is on other clubs - including my own. I don't care what deals have been done, and whether they benefit wigan in particular. Bottom line is that Sam Tomkins is a very good player (far better than Ashton will ever be), and I'm glad Wigan have been able to keep him. Until we become like the NRL and produce the equivalent player every year or so, we desperately need to keep those we do produce to prevent RL being seen entirely as a feeder for RU.

Bottom line lis that we have too many small clubs in SL, who shouldn't call the shots for the clubs capable of spending more. We need a salary cap to stop teams bankrupting themselves, but not at the expense of the game as a whole. If RU didn't exist then I'd have a different view, but it does, it threatens our sport, and the clubs with money need to be able to defend themselves.

Spot on. It is for that reason we need a 10 team comp with higher quality sides being able to spend more. Give sky however many games they want for the biggest tv deal. Lets get the best players playing our sport.

Like I said on an earlier post, spending to the cap should be one of the criteria on the franchise application.

that's pretty much spot on.

Agreed. 100%.

Totally agree. I'd be amazed if the likes of Lomax, Hall and Jones-Bishop weren't already on RU's radar. Special talents who we now have a much better chance of keeping.

Well said mate 100% correct

The only problem I would have with this is if it applied solely to Tomkins, making whatever concessions to reality the RFL have made, available to all clubs is integral to the integrity of the competition.

Other than that the RFL are sadly lagging behind on this and it is sad we have needed their hand to be forced. We should just be looking to keep what we have but bring in the best of what others have.

Agreed, we need to make this available to other clubs to prevent raids from Union. There are some excellent young players about and every club needs the ability to protect them from Union.

I am less worried about the NRL as they remain in our code but it would be a tragedy to lose them from the sport altogether.

Certainly I wouldn't be happy if RU came looking for our players. And from my teams point of view (Leeds) we would benefit well from this central pool, but isn't exactly fair and level playing field for all and would make a bit of a joke of salary cap. Might was well just raise the cap

If the cap were just raised you could guarantee the money would find its way to into the pockets of some average overseas players. At least this way it goes to home grown talent.

It also ought to make it easier for smaller clubs to keep their own, home grown, star players because if say a player form Cas left for Wigan then he would not be eligible for the "Sam Tomkins deal" because Wigan didn't produce him.

The only problem for smaller clubs is if they have no home grown star players because they have a rubbish youth set up. And lets fact it we are into the 2nd round of franchises already and have had the flat rate cap for even longer so they have no excuse to be lagging behind in this department. So if they are disadvantaged because they have no eligible players, who's fault is that?

Exactly. I'm so tired of clubs who use innovative methods to grow their crowds, develop new income streams and attract and recruit lots of local young talent being accused of making things hard for other clubs. Professional sport is a competition, it is not about fairness or level playing fields. It's about time some of these smaller clubs, whose failures seem to have dictated the direction of the British game in the last 10 years, were reminded that with inclusion in SL there is a responsibility to contribute to the game's wealth.

couldnt agree more with that

Decent article on the man himself. www.nzherald.co.nz/league/news/a ... um=twitter

Decent article on the man himself. www.nzherald.co.nz/league/news/a ... um=twitter