Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:44 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Oh that old chestnut, they're only good because of the good players around them.
Amor was class at Wakey, thats why most of the top teams were in for him and we paid our first transfer fee in years.

fair enough then. McManus can continue his love of not spending money and sell those players and bring in some no-names to fill the squad.

Its pretty easy to say you dont need to be spending money on bringing in new players when you have the squad Leeds, Saints or Wigan have.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:57 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

fair enough then. McManus can continue his love of not spending money and sell those players and bring in some no-names to fill the squad.

Its pretty easy to say you dont need to be spending money on bringing in new players when you have the squad Leeds, Saints or Wigan have.

So you want a football style culture where a champion team can be bought in 1 summer? I personally like having a sport where it takes time and money to be successful, (and before you bleat you only say that cos your winning, watching Warrington evolve has been one of the best things in the sport over the last couple of years)

Let Salford spend the money on bringing in a new team, and let them spend as much as they want on youth, but, until the vast majority of teams are spending up to the cap, it is possible to build a very competitive team by just spending the cap - so it shouldn't be an issue.

Also, including laffranchi and hohaia in a list of "quality players" saints have surrounded their youth with is amusing, given most saints fans on our board would quite happily organise a witch hunt to get rid of laffranchi, and were on their knees praying for the lance to cowboys rumour to be true! (I'm a fan of laffranchi personally, but I'm definitely in the minority.) - also wheeler had kept hohaia out of the team for the first two weeks, youth before marquee and all that

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:58 pm  

Talent Spotter wrote:

Make your mind up?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, the first quote is precisely what Salford have done. Signed up some quality youth (I assume) - in a couple of years, they'll be ready to break through and koukash can spend what he likes to keep them here - where is the contradiction?

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:55 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

So you want a football style culture where a champion team can be bought in 1 summer? I personally like having a sport where it takes time and money to be successful, (and before you bleat you only say that cos your winning, watching Warrington evolve has been one of the best things in the sport over the last couple of years)

Why bother with this straw man?

Let Salford spend the money on bringing in a new team, and let them spend as much as they want on youth, but, until the vast majority of teams are spending up to the cap, it is possible to build a very competitive team by just spending the cap - so it shouldn't be an issue.

No, it isnt. Thats why we dont see much movement in the clubs.

Also, including laffranchi and hohaia in a list of "quality players" saints have surrounded their youth with is amusing, given most saints fans on our board would quite happily organise a witch hunt to get rid of laffranchi, and were on their knees praying for the lance to cowboys rumour to be true! (I'm a fan of laffranchi personally, but I'm definitely in the minority.) - also wheeler had kept hohaia out of the team for the first two weeks, youth before marquee and all that

But they still had them yes? And Saints are building from a position where they already spent big money on union players like Perelini and Tuilagi, where they had already spent money on overseas players like Farleigh, Lyon, Albert, and were more than prepared to throw huge money to bring in Sculthorpe and Newlove

Lets not pretend Saints didnt need to splash the cash to get where they are now.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:56 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

The two aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, the first quote is precisely what Salford have done. Signed up some quality youth (I assume) - in a couple of years, they'll be ready to break through and koukash can spend what he likes to keep them here - where is the contradiction?

Claiming Koukash won't sign any top youth players because it doesn't generate headlines, then admitting he is signing young players from the Wigan area is a rather large contradiction.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:13 pm  

I did a rather long post on this a few pages back. But I doubt anyone read it. Both koukash and big mac are arguing 2 equally valid points. Both would favour their own clubs more. I would argue that big mac does not want to spend without any possibility of return. He is an investor. The long term suits him. Koukash comes across as a benefactor. Willing to spend without return but limited to his interest.

I'd argue that one marquee player would have little effect in a team sport. But if koukash got his golden ticket that would allow far more than one. Saints probably weighed up the numbers and could see that they could get a longer period of revenue growth voting against.

This allows them to build a war chest of players and money if koukash wins out. The argument that about the good of the game rings true because both sides are correct.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:20 pm  

Talent Spotter wrote:

Claiming Koukash won't sign any top youth players because it doesn't generate headlines, then admitting he is signing young players from the Wigan area is a rather large contradiction.

I've never claimed he won't :s I've said he should, and I've said he should be shouting from the rooftops about that rather than signing the likes of tim smith (the one move that he's made about Salford that irritated me was replacing Sneyd with smith, but that's a whole other argument for another day) - whether he brings in another in 5 years time using the marquee rule, to replace said youngsters, would be another bone of contention of mine - but I don't know if that will happen yet.

I WANT koukash to spend his money on youth. The suggestion that it takes too long, and that koukash isn't here on the short term are contradictory standpoints (if he was here long term, it shouldn't matter that it takes 3 years ish to embed the best youth players etc) - I WANT every team to spend as much as they can producing as many and as good youngsters as possible. Whilst Salford can afford to do both (and I don't doubt koukash would sign marquees as well as youth should the opportunity arise) I don't believe enough clubs in the uk could, and thus it shouldn't be brought in (as I fully believe certain clubs would sacrifice any chance they have at producing any player of note, for a short term, fan pleaser, overpaid Aussie.)

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:53 pm  

I agree with a lot of your comments regarding youth development. My main issues are people making wild assumptions about what Koukash will/won't do in the future, and Mcmanus saying clubs can't afford to spend any extra cash, yet undoubtedly taking advantage of the extra money the home grown exemptions on the cap will free up, keeping Saints at least 3 years ahead of the likes of Salford and any other clubs who manage to attract an investor, yet have had poor youth development systems in the past.

Ideally I would like to see some sort of proposal drafted up which shows how the clubs are going to use the extra money in regards to youth development, rather than putting out vaguely worded statements, but I doubt this will happen.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:24 pm  

But I want to see ppl like G Ford, O Farrell, J Tomkins, R Priestland, Scott Williams, B O'Driscoll & D Peel playing RL not RU. So at least 2 marquee players should be available to SL teams.

Flip, a team of v good plys does NOT guarantee trophies.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:45 pm  

Talent Spotter wrote:

I agree with a lot of your comments regarding youth development. My main issues are people making wild assumptions about what Koukash will/won't do in the future, and Mcmanus saying clubs can't afford to spend any extra cash, yet undoubtedly taking advantage of the extra money the home grown exemptions on the cap will free up, keeping Saints at least 3 years ahead of the likes of Salford and any other clubs who manage to attract an investor, yet have had poor youth development systems in the past.

Ideally I would like to see some sort of proposal drafted up which shows how the clubs are going to use the extra money in regards to youth development, rather than putting out vaguely worded statements, but I doubt this will happen.

I think it boils down to, ultimately both chairmen can fulfil both rules if they were both in force, and both think they know what's best for everyone else. Whether marquee or youth, both want the game to grow, and have different solutions to it.

(For the record, I don't think we will be able to take advantage of the home grown rule - assuming Roby is on 200k: 100k of it is still on the cap, and 100k of it is removed due to ets disp removal - so no advantage - where an advantage would be gained is if we could get graham back - but it seems unlikely (as I said earlier) our chairman falls in the can but won't category (ruddy bankers )

In ideal world, we'd be able to afford both picking the best youth from our academies, to be brought up with the biggest names in rl - I disagree that we would be able to bring a sbw or a inglis (though I admire those who try) and that's where the marquee falls down for me, because we can fit the second lot in the cap as it is! (I think if any team were able to pull off a signing of said magnitude they shouldn't be stopped - and it didn't do Warrington any good in 2005! )

Imo something similar to the tomkins situation should be workable - but open to all teams to have 1/2 players able to work for outside sponsorship is the best compromise - but who are we to make those decisions