Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
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
- - - - -

Lets hope this doesn't come to Super League


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 5,963 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 08:59 AM

http://www.courierma...r-1226682442656



#2 YCKonstantine

YCKonstantine
  • Coach
  • 1,400 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:20 AM

Why not?


It's time to park the camels.


#3 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:25 AM

Indeed why not maybe we could hold on to a few of our genuine stars.

Great quote from the article

one prominent official said: "Why should the weaker clubs hold back the rest of the game?"

#4 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 5,963 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:26 AM

Why not?

An agents charter. A majority of clubs can't afford it and will cause even more financial problems for the game here.



#5 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,718 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:26 AM

Wouldn't mind seeing it happen. The player drain is getting bigger.
Posted Image

#6 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,723 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:39 AM

The union premiership in England has a marquee player rule and it has made some clubs sweat with how much it pushes their budgets.  I'd be generally for it in SL but it couldn't be an open-ended exception or we'd end up with bankrupt clubs; if it has to come in then I'd like to see a standard salary cap for the rest of the players but the marquee player can't take overall player salary beyond 50% revenue.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#7 Southerner

Southerner
  • Coach
  • 916 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 11:10 AM

I'm all for the Marquee player idea. The reasons that back up the idea on the article are (1) "The Bulldogs have a leagues club that makes a $30 million annual profit yet can't sign the Wallaby winger because of the salary-cap restrictions". (2) "But we have to make sure something is in place to ensure we keep our best players." (3) "The marquee player allowance has made the A-League the massive success it is today". (4) "The Roosters, who have enjoyed a 63 per cent home crowd increase since signing Sonny Bill Williams from the All Blacks".

 

The only negative I can instantly think of would be the inability for some teams to finance a marquee player but "Why should the weaker clubs hold back the rest of the game?".



#8 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 485 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 11:15 AM

Half a dozen or more top union players signed up would do wonders for publicity nationwide.
Bring it on i say.

#9 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 12:03 PM

NRL doesn't need any kind of marquee player exception because it designed a league structure and then invited teams it deemed fit enough to compete in it. Some teams amalgamated through necessity to achieve acceptance. The subsequent wider popularity of such an intense competition has driven up the cap to the extent that even calibre players like Benji Marshall can ditch for more money elsewhere without the league needing to reassess its retention ability or principles. The best NRL players will get theirs. Those that want more can try other, less principled sports.

 

As long as SL takes the view of fitting the system around its wildly varying (in terms of fan base, commercial viability etc.) historic clubs it will always face the predicament of losing calibre players. You can make as many ad-hoc, incomprehensible cap exceptions as you want to pack them on to the same small number of teams but this drives down the league's wider appeal as well as endangering smaller teams who then feel the need to pay more to compete. The subsequent lopsided league (loaded with financial peril, to boot) becomes a commercially unviable snoozefest.

 

The solution is that eventually SL will learn that it needs to develop a "league structure first" mentality. Until then, these debates are as pointless as they are endless and the best players will find their way to NRL or rugby union.


Edited by DeadShotKeen, 22 July 2013 - 12:04 PM.


#10 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 12:10 PM

And in specific reference to this piece, I both hope and suspect that NRL sticks to its guns and dismisses this idea. If it ain't broke etc.



#11 Father Ted

Father Ted
  • Coach
  • 1,589 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:15 PM

Great idea, we need to keep our quality players and pay them the salary to do so.
Club's know their own budget and what they can afford and what they cannot.
Most SL clubs are run by busniness men who have already made £ms through running their own very succesful companies.
They don't need any lesson from the RFL or anyone on how to keep a company out of financial trouble.

As for the salary cap. The SC is a joke anyway, how can the RFL know what players earn if they don't demand sight of their bank accounts or tax returns. Just to accept the club's word on what they are paying a player is laughable.
Either run the SC properly or don't bother running it at all!

#12 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,718 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:36 PM

And in specific reference to this piece, I both hope and suspect that NRL sticks to its guns and dismisses this idea. If it ain't broke etc.

I hate this argument. It's a bloody awful argument.
Posted Image

#13 Duff Duff

Duff Duff
  • Banned
  • 717 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:13 PM

NRL doesn't need any kind of marquee player exception because it designed a league structure and then invited teams it deemed fit enough to compete in it. Some teams amalgamated through necessity to achieve acceptance. The subsequent wider popularity of such an intense competition has driven up the cap to the extent that even calibre players like Benji Marshall can ditch for more money elsewhere without the league needing to reassess its retention ability or principles. The best NRL players will get theirs. Those that want more can try other, less principled sports.
 
As long as SL takes the view of fitting the system around its wildly varying (in terms of fan base, commercial viability etc.) historic clubs it will always face the predicament of losing calibre players. You can make as many ad-hoc, incomprehensible cap exceptions as you want to pack them on to the same small number of teams but this drives down the league's wider appeal as well as endangering smaller teams who then feel the need to pay more to compete. The subsequent lopsided league (loaded with financial peril, to boot) becomes a commercially unviable snoozefest.
 
The solution is that eventually SL will learn that it needs to develop a "league structure first" mentality. Until then, these debates are as pointless as they are endless and the best players will find their way to NRL or rugby union.


I would have to agree with this whole heartedly. The failure to create a genuine elite Super League along the lines envisaged by Maurice Lindsay has continued to haunt Rugby League. Until the Super League is composed of 10 or 12 clubs of near the required standards any talk of salary cap exceptions and cap increases are plain daft. Super League needs to be able to walk before it can run.

#14 Adelaide Tiger

Adelaide Tiger
  • Coach
  • 140 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 03:55 AM

Thevsalary cap puts SL clubs at a disadvantage when top class players become available i.e. Marshall, Folau and SBW or even Burgess, Tomkins.

SL is similar to the A-League in Australia (that's the round football game to those in the UK). Both codes are up against stronger codes such as football and RU in the UK and NRL and AFL in Australia.

So to stimulate interest in the A-League the governing body introduced 3 levels of Marquee Player

1. International Marquee Player - salary is exempt from the salary cap
2. Australian Marquee Player - salary is exempt from the salary cap
3. Young Australian Marquee Player - under the age of 23 and there is a limit to their salary but it is exempt from the salary cap

Only one club, sydney FC had a player from option 1 and 2. Most just chose 1 Marquee player (International) and amazingly Central Coast Mariners who won the Championship Play Off did not have a Marquee Player.

The 2012/13 season saw Alessandro dei Piero sign for Sydney FC and the interest in the game from the press and TV was phenomenal. Sydney FC attendsnces rose by 157% which is amazing as for most of the season they had an absolute shocker. Overall the total attendance for the season was up by 250,000.

C'mon, SL give clubs the chance to get the big names in or retain our outstanding players.

#15 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,549 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 06:19 AM

Most SL clubs are run by busniness men who have already made £ms through running their own very succesful companies.
They don't need any lesson from the RFL or anyone on how to keep a company out of financial trouble.

Did you have your tongue firmly in your cheek when you typed this?

rldfsignature.jpg


#16 Saint Toppy

Saint Toppy
  • Coach
  • 2,643 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 08:08 AM

I'm in favour of this for SL but dont think it should be permitted for overseas players. Sl clubs should be encouraged to train & retain the best British players and keep them in our game.

In addition I think there should be a SC exemption of some kind for home grown players. If say all your own academy products only counted for 50% on the cap then clubs would be more willing to invest in them instead of looking for short term fixes with 2nd rate overseas players.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users