Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Martyn Sadler and Andy Wilson hint at behind the scenes restructure of Super League


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#141 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:56 AM

Err, pass.


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#142 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:04 PM

I don't disagree.  I don't like the idea of marquee players at all.

 

I'll tell you what I do like though, all players being paid from a central pot and on the books of the RFL, with PAYE in place and the governing body having full sight and control of the salary cap and also there to help prevent the temporary circumstances that we're seeing at Leigh at the moment.

 

 

Interesting. Playing devils; advocate though, isn't this just transferring the  problem from clubs to the RFL. Have I misunderstood? Where will the RFL get the wages from? Individual clubs pay the gate money and other income to the RFL? What if a club defaults on it payments? 



#143 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:11 PM

Err, pass.

general question for all, but if you want your own, when Burgess left for Aistralia did you detect people deciding not to follow Bradford any more because of it?

#144 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,977 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:17 PM


Interesting. Playing devils; advocate though, isn't this just transferring the problem from clubs to the RFL. Have I misunderstood? Where will the RFL get the wages from? Individual clubs pay the gate money and other income to the RFL? What if a club defaults on it payments?


That's what would happen clubs would default on payment to the RFL but fans would still expect them to pay the players. Within 1 season the RFL would go bankrupt.

Edited by bobbruce, 30 April 2013 - 12:22 PM.


#145 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:18 PM

general question for all, but if you want your own, when Burgess left for Aistralia did you detect people deciding not to follow Bradford any more because of it?

Our decline into oblivion is entirely blamed on Iestyn Harris on these shores and Russell Crowe on others. Once Sam (see I can do it too; Sam, Sam, Sam, Sam) signed for Souths he decided not to follow Bradford and just pottered around the pitch.


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#146 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:28 PM

Interesting. Playing devils; advocate though, isn't this just transferring the  problem from clubs to the RFL. Have I misunderstood? Where will the RFL get the wages from? Individual clubs pay the gate money and other income to the RFL? What if a club defaults on it payments? 

 

I'm the first to admit that I haven't thought it through.  However I never fail to be disgusted at clubs "in trouble" failing to pay the inland revenue.  

 

The players would be employed by the RFL, and their salaries retained by the RFL from the Sky and any other central sponsorship money.  Where there's a deficit, the club coughs up on a monthly basis in time to pay the player.  I think that it would give the RFL a true early warning system of financial mismanagement/trouble and potentially time to provide some support for the club, rather than  be reactive as now.  It would also make the salary cap believable in a stroke.

 

I'd also like the RFL to licence merchandise for each club/competition, and sign up kit manufacturers for entire competitions and produce ranges of clothing etc that people truely want to have.  In addition they should define target postcodes for each and every club and support them in marketing the game in these areas as part of a fully integrated marketing, participation and community program.  Again I can't claim to have thought this through either.  


Edited by Larry the Leit, 30 April 2013 - 12:28 PM.


#147 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:28 PM

I see Ian Leneghan has come out and said he is firmly against raising the salary cap, using the phrase "why would I want to pay more than I already am ?".

Very astute fellows him and that Mr Hetherington, they can see what will keep their clubs at the top both on the field and financially and will exert influence to keep it that way.

 

That is absolutely correct and, as the operators of Leeds andf Wigan respectively, that is as it should be. The problem is, from my point of view, that this narrow focus of what's best for my team  and peripherally what's best for SL, is too narrow a focus and the RFL, with hopefully the mandate of looking after the whole game, from pub team to SL, should be in absolute charge and make decisions in the best interests of RL and not just a couple of clubs or, indeed, SL.

 

The reality however is that because SL have managed to get the Sky money directly from Sky and bypass the RFL the RFL is now a toothless paper tiger and so SL calls the shots and they very definitely do NOT operate in the best interests of the game as a whole.



#148 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,794 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:29 PM

 

Of course it's very "convenient" for them to not back a rise in salaries, but it's only fair to accuse them of self interest if you can justify why a rise in the salary cap will be good for the game?

Adding 20% on to salary cap spends could be justified if it stopped (let alone reversed) the drift of players to NRL/RU.

How will it do that?

Perhaps they have a view that raising the salary cap won't be good for the game in the UK, and not just from a financial perspective ?

Put it this way, when the cap remains low then clubs can not buy a team and they must develop and bring through quality juniors who can make the grade in the 1st team while being on comparatively low wages in the infancy of their careers. Which two clubs are head and shoulders above the rest in producing quality young players and bringing them through the ranks into their 1st team ?

A low cap means the clubs who do that are likely to be the most successful while also keeping costs down. Perhaps other clubs should take the hint and take their junior development more seriously then, instead of paying a journeyman £80k-£100k a season, they could have a homegrown player on half of that sum initially. I believe thats where they're coming from and actually saying that the cap is high enough if you get your structure right and use it wisely.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#149 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,252 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:50 PM

Also, if you do get your structure right and bring players through, you get an increase in the salary cap as well!


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

 

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.
 
Moderator of the International board


#150 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:07 PM

The reality however is that because SL have managed to get the Sky money directly from Sky and bypass the RFL the RFL is now a toothless paper tiger and so SL calls the shots and they very definitely do NOT operate in the best interests of the game as a whole.

 

I held back from putting this as strongly in my post, mainly as I don't know enough of the facts in hand.  I thought that the RFL did get involved hence how they've been able to hold back some of Bradford's cash this year.

 

I'd love the RFL to be a leading light and provide true leadership and direction, but I wouldn't trust ANY professional sports governing body to do what's best for the game overall, and I find it difficult to believe there'll be a time when BARLA can trust junior football or amateur non-elite adult to the RFL.



#151 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:33 PM

Put it this way, when the cap remains low then clubs can not buy a team and they must develop and bring through quality juniors who can make the grade in the 1st team while being on comparatively low wages in the infancy of their careers. Which two clubs are head and shoulders above the rest in producing quality young players and bringing them through the ranks into their 1st team ?

A low cap means the clubs who do that are likely to be the most successful while also keeping costs down. Perhaps other clubs should take the hint and take their junior development more seriously then, instead of paying a journeyman £80k-£100k a season, they could have a homegrown player on half of that sum initially. I believe that's where they're coming from and actually saying that the cap is high enough if you get your structure right and use it wisely.

Absolutely spot on for me.

Sad that places like Wakefield, Warrington, Hull, Bradford, Salford, Huddersfield, Widnes i.e. half the league can't seemingly prioritise running a junior system to rival Leeds and Wigan.

Then again it may be easier to get the kids playing if the local club is not a laughing stock or a busted flush.

Central planning and strict rules on junior development then??

Because Brian Noble's take on the drift of players to NRL/Union was that we don't chuck money at them to stay, but produce new stars.

#152 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:39 PM

Absolutely spot on for me.

Sad that places like Wakefield, Warrington, Hull, Bradford, Salford, Huddersfield, Widnes i.e. half the league can't seemingly prioritise running a junior system to rival Leeds and Wigan.
 

 

Leeds' junior policy could at times be described as signing pretty much everybody they can get their hands on from within a 30 mile radius.  Wakefield recently lost out on a youngster to Wigan.

 

Amateur clubs do the bulk of player development, the professional clubs take the cream as you would expect.  The richer clubs can afford to spend more time with more youngsters.  It's a numbers game.



#153 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:53 PM

Leeds' junior policy could at times be described as signing pretty much everybody they can get their hands on from within a 30 mile radius.  Wakefield recently lost out on a youngster to Wigan.
 
Amateur clubs do the bulk of player development, the professional clubs take the cream as you would expect.  The richer clubs can afford to spend more time with more youngsters.  It's a numbers game.

there are of course these twists and turns but you cannot get away from the fact that at the start of the season Leeds had 22 Leeds born lads in SL and Wigan 25.

Everyone else trailed so I don't see evidence for the two big clubs hogging all the best. They produce the best from local amateur clubs.

#154 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,252 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

there are of course these twists and turns but you cannot get away from the fact that at the start of the season Leeds had 22 Leeds born lads in SL and Wigan 25.

Everyone else trailed so I don't see evidence for the two big clubs hogging all the best. They produce the best from local amateur clubs.

Christ! I had no idea there were so many Leeds lads in the Wigan squad!

 

:lol:


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

 

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.
 
Moderator of the International board


#155 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,481 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:13 PM

 Perhaps they have a view that raising the salary cap won't be good for the game in the UK, and not just from a financial perspective ?

Put it this way, when the cap remains low then clubs can not buy a team and they must develop and bring through quality juniors who can make the grade in the 1st team while being on comparatively low wages in the infancy of their careers. Which two clubs are head and shoulders above the rest in producing quality young players and bringing them through the ranks into their 1st team ?

A low cap means the clubs who do that are likely to be the most successful while also keeping costs down. Perhaps other clubs should take the hint and take their junior development more seriously then, instead of paying a journeyman £80k-£100k a season, they could have a homegrown player on half of that sum initially. I believe thats where they're coming from and actually saying that the cap is high enough if you get your structure right and use it wisely.

 

But a cap that is too low could see clubs producing players that they can't keep hold of.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#156 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,794 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:18 PM

But a cap that is too low could see clubs producing players that they can't keep hold of.


True but when the 2 operators of the largest talent conveyor belts don't see it as a major issue then I'm inclined to trust their judgement.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#157 foozler

foozler
  • Coach
  • 955 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:20 PM

The only issue with this marquee player thing is, if you take the immediate situation at Warrington, the NRL chased player is Mike Cooper and the RU chased player is Ryan Atkins. Do they both get the exemption, are they both marquee?

 

No, you have 1 marquee player per squad per season.

 

It is up to the individual club to manage who it is and how much they are worth, as with the current salary cap. 



#158 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,978 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 03:27 PM

No, you have 1 marquee player per squad per season.

 

It is up to the individual club to manage who it is and how much they are worth, as with the current salary cap. 

So in this situation, be it hypothetical mixed with rumour and a dash of truth, which of the two would get the marquee special boy sticker? If it's neither, what's to stop Hill angling for the bonus by touting his agent round, without wanting to leave... or even mid-contract? And again using Warrington as a basis, what if they want to split it between Myler, Ratchford and Currie?

 

I just think there are too many holes and divisive elements to a marquee player tag.


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#159 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:27 PM

So in this situation, be it hypothetical mixed with rumour and a dash of truth, which of the two would get the marquee special boy sticker? If it's neither, what's to stop Hill angling for the bonus by touting his agent round, without wanting to leave... or even mid-contract? And again using Warrington as a basis, what if they want to split it between Myler, Ratchford and Currie?

I just think there are too many holes and divisive elements to a marquee player tag.

it's basically the highest salary doesnt count. Nothing more or less complex than that.

#160 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,861 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

it's basically the highest salary doesnt count. Nothing more or less complex than that.

IMHO Offering one player far more than his team mates becomes a complex issue, players trying to angle for that highest salary by threatening to leave through their agents would be very complex, and trying to work out who should get the big salary, the best up and coming player or the best acutual senior players who have achieved but may not be as effective in their later years?

I mean should the marquee player at leeds be watkins or hardaker?

Peacock or Sinfield?.

Pick one and the other three will not be very happy at all.....

A good solution would be a set salaries policy and the club stick to it to ensure fairness across the board. Which is what leeds do.

Edited by The Parksider, 30 April 2013 - 06:25 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users