: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:56 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

Exactly. What is so hard 2 introduce about this and what negative effects will it really have?

Nothing hard at all mate

But the RFL mindset is to make the rest the level of the weakest.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:21 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

This seems like a good idea to me. But would some clubs argue that players sign and poach others at academy level before making it into the first team?

I know it’s not as simple as it may seem but why would the youngsters chose say Wigan over Castleford? IMO it’s mainly due to the facilities we have i.e training and Stadium etc also it’s cause we have a good track record of producing good youngsters who go onto the GB team.

It’s all about the package you can offer the kids as imo if we were all offering the same thing then team loyalties would come into it. The ‘lesser’ teams have to pick themselves up to our level.

Currently it’s the wrong way round as we are being brought down to their level when they should be coming to us.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:27 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

I know it’s not as simple as it may seem but why would the youngsters chose say Wigan over Castleford? IMO it’s mainly due to the facilities we have i.e training and Stadium etc also it’s cause we have a good track record of producing good youngsters who go onto the GB team.

It’s all about the package you can offer the kids as imo if we were all offering the same thing then team loyalties would come into it. The ‘lesser’ teams have to pick themselves up to our level.

Currently it’s the wrong way round as we are being brought down to their level when they should be coming to us.

If you poach a talented yougster from a team when it comes for him to play first team he counts on cap. i think that would stop most poaching

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:40 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

A-Shunning the ex players who have played the game. The likes of Robinson, Hanley, Edwards, Larder, Mcginty, Lydon & Ford have all gone over 2 the other side as we wouldn’t offer them the opportunities that RU have. Why weren’t these players offered the types of roles as back coach, defense coach at SL clubs over the likes of Endacott, Milward, Raper, T Smith, Murray, Anderson, Potter etc? The more people we have in the game who love the game and want to see it be a success the better IMO.

Hanley coached Saints to win the SL Grand Final, and also coached GB. He lost the Saints job because of his "bombastic" personality! Larder coached Widnes in the old First Division, as well as England and GB. None of which he did with any great degree of success. Ford was coach of Oldham, if my memory serves me correctly, before going to Ireland RU. Likewise, he wasn't proving to be a great success. Wigan gave Lydon a chance, he wasnt impressed. So to say that these did not get a chance is simply wrong. They had chances, and blew them. If they were coaching in SL now, they would still be no better than also rans.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:41 pm  

TheSurgeon wrote:

If the SC was changed to 50% of turnover, then all IL would have to do is to buy £1m worth of Golden Gamble tickets each match, and the money would come straight back to him,(less the £2000 top prize if he didn't win) and it would count as turnover..........simple.

Or just put 500sh onto the gate,

rl : Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:55 pm  

For those like me who were always wary of the cap at its introduction, it has failed spectacularly.
It has failed to stop clubs going broke. From Oldham Bears in 1997 to Rochdale a few weeks ago clubs have gone broke. That was the reason it was introduced and it has failed.
Then in came the numpties trying to establish a "level playing field". All this rubbish in persuit of the unattainable cliche!
There's no level playing field in life and there will never be one in Rugby League. After 12 years are Castleford & Wakey as good as Leeds or Saints? Wire have officially spent the same on the cap as Leeds or Saints, we know who are the top two teams and who are the rest.
The "level playing field" has failed.
What is succeeded in doing is lowering the numbers and standards of players in Super Dooper League.
Our England team wasn't a team full of International Quality players. They played like journeymen when faced with the sports very best.
England's finest were humiliated.
And what have the RFL had to say about it? Nothing at all!
They are responsible as they reduced the numbers playing at the top level in this country. The salary cap means you can't pay players and the 20/20/25 meant that a club couldn't have them in numbers.
With only 20 per first team squad no club or coach could take a chance on fielding youngsters when they could buy a journeyman Aussie who wouldn't make the mistakes young players make.
I never, ever, agreed with that but that's what happened with the cap and 20/20. It was also designed to do that specifically by the SL clubs and the RFL.
We should now be on a massive programme of expansion of players numbers for the next world cup in 2013 so we don't get a repitition. Are we? No chance! the SL clubs and RFL will not remove the restrictions they have in place to stop player development. Not at any price!
It's not on their agenda!

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:00 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Maybe, just thinking out loud on this one..

Different caps should be introduced for different sections of each team, for example..

A cap for the players under 21.
A cap for UK players
A cap for overseas players
A cap for RU players coming over to entice RU players

Keep things equal from RL to RL team in the SL help compete with RU in this country and others..

If they could get the amounts sorted I think that would be a good idea

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:17 pm  

1 idea would be for a player who comes up through a clubs academy set up, to say have say 20% of their salary excluded from the cap for the 1st 5 years that they are a 1st team squad member. Then say between 5 and 10 years at the club, they get 35% of their salary excluded from the cap, and then 10 years plus 50% of their salary excluded.
This would then encourage clubs to not only be pro active in developing their own players, but to also keep hold of the players they produce long term, and it would probably have the effect of reducing foreign players without the clubs being forced to cut foreigners and then look for loopholes to still bring them over.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:21 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Wasn't Phil Clarkes (Andy?)brother the agent involved in the Chris Ashton deal?

Yes he was. Sam Tomkins agent is the same as Chris Ashtons.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:31 pm  

cadoo wrote:

Yes he was. Sam Tomkins agent is the same as Chris Ashtons.

Oh great