Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Dr Koukash on FiveLive


  • Please log in to reply
411 replies to this topic

#21 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,763 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:15 AM

All I hear is how Koukash wants instant success on the field and I am yet to be convinced he is prepared to be patient and build properly on and off the field

He has said previously that he wants to build things off the field too. He wants Salford to be self-sufficient. That's the same aim as, say, McManus at Saints.

#22 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,763 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

So he doesn't need an exemption then. He just needs to invest smartly.

He recognised the need to invest smartly, which is of course what the previous administration at Salford did not do. But I think he is right about the exemption. We need competitive sides now and if Koukash has the ability and is willing to spend the cash to get Salford competitive quickly then I don't see what the problem is. Other exceptions have been made to the rules: the RFL buying out the lease at Odsal to keep the Bulls afloat, for example, was a case of the governing body doing something for one club that it didn't do for others who were struggling. So giving an exemption on the salary cap to Salford for say one year would not be anything outrageous.

#23 Leeds Wire

Leeds Wire
  • Coach
  • 3,883 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:21 AM

So if we give Salford a salary cap exemption, who's turn is it after that... then who's turn is it after that... and so on... ?

#24 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,162 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:29 AM

He recognised the need to invest smartly, which is of course what the previous administration at Salford did not do. But I think he is right about the exemption. We need competitive sides now and if Koukash has the ability and is willing to spend the cash to get Salford competitive quickly then I don't see what the problem is. Other exceptions have been made to the rules: the RFL buying out the lease at Odsal to keep the Bulls afloat, for example, was a case of the governing body doing something for one club that it didn't do for others who were struggling. So giving an exemption on the salary cap to Salford for say one year would not be anything outrageous.

And then halved our sky money for two years.

This salary cap exemption wouldn't work, because if it's temporary it'll have to come down again, so those expensive players who came would leave or everyone takes a pay cut, which defeats the object.

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#25 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,392 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:30 AM

So if we give Salford a salary cap exemption, who's turn is it after that... then who's turn is it after that... and so on... ?


Basically it's an open door to the Ken Bates effect where you 'sell' a club from one set of owners to another in return for them gaining an exemption. The owners may or may not be the same people as the trust terminates in the BVI and no one can check.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#26 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,392 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:30 AM

He recognised the need to invest smartly, which is of course what the previous administration at Salford did not do. But I think he is right about the exemption. We need competitive sides now and if Koukash has the ability and is willing to spend the cash to get Salford competitive quickly then I don't see what the problem is. Other exceptions have been made to the rules: the RFL buying out the lease at Odsal to keep the Bulls afloat, for example, was a case of the governing body doing something for one club that it didn't do for others who were struggling. So giving an exemption on the salary cap to Salford for say one year would not be anything outrageous.


What rule did the RFL break when they bought Odsal?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#27 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,076 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:31 AM

He recognised the need to invest smartly, which is of course what the previous administration at Salford did not do. But I think he is right about the exemption. We need competitive sides now and if Koukash has the ability and is willing to spend the cash to get Salford competitive quickly then I don't see what the problem is. Other exceptions have been made to the rules: the RFL buying out the lease at Odsal to keep the Bulls afloat, for example, was a case of the governing body doing something for one club that it didn't do for others who were struggling. So giving an exemption on the salary cap to Salford for say one year would not be anything outrageous.


Right, so you give Salford a cap exemption. Problem solved. Except, where is he going to get these new players from ? You can't buy what isn't for sale.

So far as I am aware all of the game's top players are contracted to other clubs and if they don't want to sell them then his salary cap exemption is worth nothing, apart from perhaps unsettling players at other clubs and creating unrealistic wage demands at contract renegotiation time ("Salford have offered me much more, you need to increase your offer"). It'll be an agent's paradise and will lead to other clubs overpaying for players.

#28 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:31 AM

Its an interesting thought isn't it! It would certainly benefit the competition to go from a big 4 (5?) to a big 6 in one year. That would certainly add value to the competition.

How would be judge who is eligible though is a different matter or should it just be a universal increase in the salary cap. After all a 1/3rd devaluation of the salary cap over 15 years hasn't seemed to help the lower clubs.

#29 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,076 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:38 AM

That's easy, just raise the cap for everyone.

The cap is a sound idea, but at its current level, it puts SL at at unfair disadvantage.

Instead of messing around at the edges of it, giving exemptions for long serving players, etc, just raise the bloody thing.

That doesn't mean the RFL can't keep a close eye on spending, sources of finance, etc, but it will give SL a better chnace of competing with Union and the NRL.


What you actually mean is it will give a handful of SL clubs a better chance of competing with RU and NRL.

If you have a club, lets call them Wakefield, who can only afford to spend say £1.1m now when the cap is £1.65m, then how does raising the cap help them in any way at all ? Just because you raise the cap it doesn't mean the clubs can afford to spend any more than they do now, apart from the top 4 or 5. All you're going to end up with is the lower clubs still spending £1.1m and the bigger clubs spending £2m+ thus increasing the gap even further between top and bottom.

#30 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 3,118 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:39 AM

That's easy, just raise the cap for everyone.

The cap is a sound idea, but at its current level, it puts SL at at unfair disadvantage.

Instead of messing around at the edges of it, giving exemptions for long serving players, etc, just raise the bloody thing.

That doesn't mean the RFL can't keep a close eye on spending, sources of finance, etc, but it will give SL a better chnace of competing with Union and the NRL.


There is that and I'm with you to a certain extent on it. But half the SL clubs are struggling financially as it is with the salary cap as it is now increasing it might make more clubs go bust or make a bigger gulf than already is in place between the top and bottom clubs in SL. If this did happen the top 6 clubs would be way ahead of the rest and I know they are ahead now but at least you get the odd competitive game when the bottom half plays the top half at the minute but doing this would IMO make too many one sides games in SL. We already have too many one sides games as it is this would just blow the bottom half of SL away.

#31 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,763 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:42 AM

So if we give Salford a salary cap exemption, who's turn is it after that... then who's turn is it after that... and so on... ?

That question applies to all exceptions. The RFL bought the least of Odsal and thus intervened directly in trying to save a club. They didn't do that for the Crusaders or for Wakefield and at the time people said that each case is different. If they can do one thing for one club but not for another already then why can't they make exemptions to the salary cap for one club but not another? As many said on here and elsewhere at the time of the Odsal intervention, each case is different. Salford didn't go into administration, so they didn't get punished, but they were completely scalped of players. Koukash has a solution to that problem which would benefit not only Salford but the game as a whole, by making another team more competitive and avoiding the blow out scores and terrible matches (on the whole) that Salford is producing.

#32 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,763 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:44 AM

What you actually mean is it will give a handful of SL clubs a better chance of competing with RU and NRL.

His point about competing with the RU and NRL was in relation to keeping our stars here in the English game so we get to enjoy the players we have produced and benefit from them being part of the game here. A change in salary cap wouldn't stop some from going to Australia or over to Union because people have different reasons for doing things but it might deter some.

#33 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:06 AM

And then halved our sky money for two years.

This salary cap exemption wouldn't work, because if it's temporary it'll have to come down again, so those expensive players who came would leave or everyone takes a pay cut, which defeats the object.


What the RFL could do is allow the salaries of substandard signed on long deals by the old regime to be taken out of the cap.

We also need a marquee player rule as a matter of urgency.

Let's stop tying our hands behind our back as a sport.

If the likes of Koukash and McManus have the funds to bring back the likes of Tomkins, Eastmond and Sa from union and Burgessx4 , Graham and Widdop from the NRL then why not create a system that allows them to do so?

#34 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:38 AM

Just seen on Sky sports that a Mr U Bolt has been asked to race dragging 2 tyres to allow others to win.

#35 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,392 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

His point about competing with the RU and NRL was in relation to keeping our stars here in the English game so we get to enjoy the players we have produced and benefit from them being part of the game here. A change in salary cap wouldn't stop some from going to Australia or over to Union because people have different reasons for doing things but it might deter some.


I'd rather the NRL paid our players what they are worth and got them tested in an altogether different environment, rather than artificially pay Brits more to stay at home.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#36 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,763 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

I'd rather the NRL paid our players what they are worth and got them tested in an altogether different environment, rather than artificially pay Brits more to stay at home.

There you are then. Sums up the mentality of rugby league supporters and probably one of the reasons why we are still such a small and inconsequential sport.

I'd much rather we pay our best players what they are worth and have them here, making our own competition that much better.

#37 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:00 AM

What you actually mean is it will give a handful of SL clubs a better chance of competing with RU and NRL.

If you have a club, lets call them Wakefield, who can only afford to spend say £1.1m now when the cap is £1.65m, then how does raising the cap help them in any way at all ? Just because you raise the cap it doesn't mean the clubs can afford to spend any more than they do now, apart from the top 4 or 5. All you're going to end up with is the lower clubs still spending £1.1m and the bigger clubs spending £2m+ thus increasing the gap even further between top and bottom.


*Cough* Two division SL *Cough*

#38 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 3,118 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:06 AM

*Cough* Two division SL *Cough*


To be fair if the Dr is wanting an open salary cap that's the way I see it going if he gets his wish. You then will have Leeds.saints.wigan.wire.hudds.salford and maybe bulls and the 2 hull teams. So that's 9 teams for SL1 in an open salary cap comp but who would be the other team to make it 10? Catalans maybe? Then you can have SL2 with the salary cap it is at now in SL and the team that wins SL2 as the option of going up or not. I think that would work personally and it would make 2 great comps IMO.

Edited by thundergaz, 21 March 2013 - 11:08 AM.


#39 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:07 AM

There you are then. Sums up the mentality of rugby league supporters and probably one of the reasons why we are still such a small and inconsequential sport.

I'd much rather we pay our best players what they are worth and have them here, making our own competition that much better.


Spot on

IMHO the salary cap should be scrapped.

It holds out game back, it doesn't produce an even competition and it doesn't stop clubs going bust. I'm struggling to find a use for it.

Edited by Ponterover, 21 March 2013 - 11:07 AM.


#40 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:09 AM

To be fair if the Dr is wanting an open salary cap that's the way I see it going if he gets his wish. You then will have Leeds.saints.wigan.wire.hudds.salford and maybe bulls and the 2 hull teams. So that's 9 teams for SL1 in an open salary cap comp but who would be the other team to make it 10? Then you can have SL2 with the salary cap it is at now in SL and the team that wins SL2 as the option of going up or not. I think that would work personally and it would make 2 great comps IMO.


Catalan, Toulouse?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users