Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Dr K rips into Mcmanus


  • Please log in to reply
316 replies to this topic

#41 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 1,061 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 11:32 AM

Marquee signing together with allowances for club academy developed players seem to make sense to me. Potential higher media profile and interest from sponsors in having top name players participating and they can help in developing youngsters and setting higher aspirations.

 

Allowances for academy developed players in the salary cap also helps in giving more money of the salary cap towards higher profile players too. This in addition to encouraging teams to focus on academy development.



#42 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,386 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 12:18 PM

my idea would be that we dispense with the salary cap but introduce two things

Clubs must spend a minimum of the equivalent of 15% of their overall salary cap on youth structure and player pathways.
e.g. Warrington spend 2Million on salary so also have to spend 300K on Youth pathways

Any junior signed from outside the clubs immediate area are are subject to two transfer fees:
** One to the amateur club from which the junior was signed
** One to the predominant Professional Club from the players home

e.g. Wigan signing a player from Wakefield's WF5 postcode would trigger a set transfers payable to Wakefield Trinity (15K) and the players Community Club i.e. Eastmoor ARLFC (5K)

The benefit of this is that it will force every club to invest in their youth pathway and any considerations of buying a new player also carries the added responsibility of finding the money that would be due to the Youth system. Over time such continuous and higher investment into the youth pathways would produce more and higher quality players and begin to negate the need for external signings.

The Community Club transfers fee would help fund the amateur game allowing it to stabilise and to grow
The Pro Transfer fee would help to limit the amount of raids into other areas and would help to distribute the wealth in the game.

Edited by OMEGA, 11 July 2014 - 12:20 PM.


#43 redjonn

redjonn
  • Coach
  • 1,061 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 12:28 PM

my idea would be that we dispense with the salary cap but introduce two things

Clubs must spend a minimum of the equivalent of 15% of their overall salary cap on youth structure and player pathways.
e.g. Warrington spend 2Million on salary so also have to spend 300K on Youth pathways

Any junior signed from outside the clubs immediate area are are subject to two transfer fees:
** One to the amateur club from which the junior was signed
** One to the predominant Professional Club from the players home

e.g. Wigan signing a player from Wakefield's WF5 postcode would trigger a set transfers payable to Wakefield Trinity (15K) and the players Community Club i.e. Eastmoor ARLFC (5K)

The benefit of this is that it will force every club to invest in their youth pathway and any considerations of buying a new player also carries the added responsibility of finding the money that would be due to the Youth system. Over time such continuous and higher investment into the youth pathways would produce more and higher quality players and begin to negate the need for external signings.

The Community Club transfers fee would help fund the amateur game allowing it to stabilise and to grow
The Pro Transfer fee would help to limit the amount of raids into other areas and would help to distribute the wealth in the game.

 

 

For youth development and community club I can see benefit.  However whilst possible increasing numbers how do we stop the drain of top players to NRL.   Just as the players become household or dare we say marquee names or high profile,  hence attract more media and sponsor interest they still go off to NRL and we don't get that benefit of top profile/highest talent in our game to help raise profile of the sport.

 

Although just re-read and you say remove salary cap... so forget my question.


Edited by redjonn, 11 July 2014 - 12:29 PM.


#44 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,651 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 12:29 PM

Any junior signed from outside the clubs immediate area are are subject to two transfer fees:
** One to the amateur club from which the junior was signed
** One to the predominant Professional Club from the players home

e.g. Wigan signing a player from Wakefield's WF5 postcode would trigger a set transfers payable to Wakefield Trinity (15K) and the players Community Club i.e. Eastmoor ARLFC (5K)

The benefit of this is that it will force every club to invest in their youth pathway and any considerations of buying a new player also carries the added responsibility of finding the money that would be due to the Youth system. Over time such continuous and higher investment into the youth pathways would produce more and higher quality players and begin to negate the need for external signings.

The Community Club transfers fee would help fund the amateur game allowing it to stabilise and to grow
The Pro Transfer fee would help to limit the amount of raids into other areas and would help to distribute the wealth in the game.

 

I disagree with your suggested benefit - it actually encourages (using your example) wakefield to neglect the youth system. Provided that they sign all their players from senior clubs, they are getting money for nothing. Why, if you are getting 15k for allowing Wigan to develop players from your area, would you go and develop them yourselves?



#45 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 12:51 PM

Club owners who don't want to offer others the opportunity for reaching a higher level of investment, ambition and competition with others in the marketplace..
Perhaps, just perhaps it wasn't the right decision.

im not saying its right or wrong, id be very happy if wecwere able to sign superstars like Burgess instead of Union, but then I dont have to dip my hand in my pocket to fund it.

The voting rules are in place to stop individuals making bad decisions which harm the game, the decision must be respected.

#46 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,705 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:22 PM

1. We have no way of knowing it has not saved clubs from going under.  We can say it has not prevented any club from going under, but it might well have saved a few.  One club spending more than they can afford (hardly an unusual event) raises the wages for all players and would impact all clubs.  The problem it seems to me is still having more places in Super League than viable Super League clubs.

 

 2. Perhaps, ideally, we would have a Super League with stronger clubs (even from France if needs be, but that is another argument), with a salary cap that they could all afford

 

1. Can't agree more. Have said this for years and it's most marked by the last licensing committee decisions. there were 14 SL places up for grabs and 17 applications

 

Out of the 17 only Hull. Leeds, Saints, and Wire were up to the licensing requirements (FACT btw) hence the licensing system did not work making P & R the obvious choice as that apparently will work (saracasm alert) 

 

2. Les Catalans seem to have met the challenges that left them a "B" and it is suggested Toulouse can replicate Catalans success Saints should have also moved up to an "A". Bradford could get to an "A"

 

Fundamentally we have big clubs, we just need to ensure they can all operate competently and compete and I disagree with you it is just a matter of being able to spend a salary cap they can all afford.

 

We have enough investment in the game to work out our best strategy which as Padge often says is one SL club per region, and then ensure they are funded adequately so they can compete evenly and that must include a quality academy at each club - this is what gives Wigan, Saints and leeds the edge over clubs who can match them for salary cap spend.

 

And to summarise this sticking to the subject of this thread, The game does not need the likes of Mr. Koucash if all he wants to do are his actions of pushing for the cap to be scrapped and unlimited spends on marquee players, and his alleged actions of trying to throw money at juniors from other clubs.



#47 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 496 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:22 PM

im not saying its right or wrong, id be very happy if wecwere able to sign superstars like Burgess instead of Union, but then I dont have to dip my hand in my pocket to fund it.

The voting rules are in place to stop individuals making bad decisions which harm the game, the decision must be respected.

Neither do the clubs if they don't wish to. Besides sooner or later the game has to stop low balling itself in the guise of good business, if clubs haven't the cash then they don't have to do it. We need to be sophisticated enough to have a multitude of approaches at the same time and stop pretending RL exists in a bubble. How can we compete with other influences if we don't provide the mechanisms to compete. Is there any other business where investors are invited but then informed of rules that are designed not to allow them to do their best. 

 

The clubs didn't vote they blocked it, bad PR going public on creating a system that makes it easier to lose top named players. And you assume that clubs don't have agenda's to that which is the good for the game. Ego will play a large part in the make up of the owners and so decision making is not always rational or fair. I bet MK could buy all the owners with the change in his car ashtray. That is one frictionable surface but frankly it's more than possible the man is right.



#48 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,386 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:24 PM

I disagree with your suggested benefit - it actually encourages (using your example) wakefield to neglect the youth system. Provided that they sign all their players from senior clubs, they are getting money for nothing. Why, if you are getting 15k for allowing Wigan to develop players from your area, would you go and develop them yourselves?


because they've got to under that system.

If Wakefield signed all their players from senior clubs, lets say for 800K total salary then under the system I suggest they'll still have to invest 120k into their youth system. Beyond that the RFL could set a minimum amount of investment acceptable at say 150k per club.

#49 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:32 PM

Dr K could buy every club and have change.  His point is very simple.  To attract more fans to every club we need STARS - no - not journeymen - STARS.   Billy Slater at Leeds.   SBW @ Huddersfield.  Jonny Wilkinson even @ Widnes.   Greg Inglis @ Saints etc etc .  We need to show the world that RL is THE game.  Somehow we need to pull out of this lethargic situation which employs 100+ Jobsworths  at Red Hall and put the money into attracting NEW fans to this great game.  A revolution is required & Marwan is the man to lead it.

 

Really? How greater is Koucash's wealth than: Davy, Caddick, Leneghan, McManus, Moran?



#50 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,705 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:39 PM

Indeed, and I only intended to disagree with one aspect of your very reasonable post.

 

Contraction would be unfortunate, but I fear it is reality.  

 

Hull

Leeds

Les Catalans

Salford

St Helens

Toulouse

Warrington

Wigan

- plus maybe up to two others.  

 

It is a list brutally based on where the finance for a club is and little else.    

 

So eight clubs for your superleague? (BTW Bob, too late it's already been done). You've successfully isolated 29 clubs and condemned them to a steady decline to nothing with that post.

 

Your wrong on the list with Salford, they don't have resources to be a Superleague club only a rich man to pay for empty seats and buy the players they cannot produce. If Rich men make viable SL clubs then you should add in Widnes, HKR, and Fartown at least. Bradford have a rich man now too.

 

On the subject of contraction where a Superleague clubs competes well and starts to produce players and attracts fans that is actually expansion. Look how far Wigan attract players and fans from? That's expansion.

 

The loss of Bramley and Hunslet to Leeds would not be contraction - that's pins in maps, the success of Leeds against the decline of their neighbours has seen the game stronger in the region.Take the Calder region where there's three clubs. less people are watching, less are playing, now that's contraction.

 

Koucash's defeat was a victory for realism, but beware championing it Bob.



#51 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,651 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 01:40 PM

I read 900 million quid or more, so he isn't skint. Dunno about the others.



#52 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,752 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:13 PM

Club owners who don't want to offer others the opportunity for reaching a higher level of investment, ambition and competition with others in the marketplace..

Perhaps,  just perhaps it wasn't the right decision.

 

 

Are these others in the long line of investors desperate to buy their clubs, or do you really mean just one man?


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#53 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 496 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:18 PM

Well it's not an unrelated issue, because where are you going to get the money from in the first place to buy these marquee players. You have to start somewhere. Like Dave said, it's very easy to spend other people's money in writing. Personally I don't think the marquee rule would fix any of these problems.

Doesn't have to fix the problem, it has to contribute to fixing the problem. And if there is no cash a club doesn't have to go down the route.



#54 Middleman

Middleman
  • Coach
  • 206 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:19 PM

im not saying its right or wrong, id be very happy if wecwere able to sign superstars like Burgess instead of Union, but then I dont have to dip my hand in my pocket to fund it.

The voting rules are in place to stop individuals making bad decisions which harm the game, the decision must be respected.

 

DT - reading the stories, it seems McManus & others ? stopped a vote from actually taking place , and judging from comments made by both the Salford & Saints owners , it's got rather personal .

I wouldn't trust RL or the SL chariman to run a Spar Shop.. that much for respect .

 

All clubs decisions are dominated by their own self interests - Koukash is just that much brasher & obvious about it .

 

Much as I understand the ire generated by a Newbie millionaire coming in and shouting his mouth off about how things should be done , I also would resent an incumbant Chairman acting like Gandalf ' Non shall pass!'

I get the impression some of the more wealthy - Wigan - Leeds - Wire - Hull - Hudds are acting like the Stanleys in the Battle of Bosworth ... hanging back while they decide which side it would be more advantageous to support.

An Inglis !  An Inglis a kingdom for my Inglis !...



#55 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,616 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:25 PM

So eight clubs for your superleague? (BTW Bob, too late it's already been done). You've successfully isolated 29 clubs and condemned them to a steady decline to nothing with that post.

 

Your wrong on the list with Salford, they don't have resources to be a Superleague club only a rich man to pay for empty seats and buy the players they cannot produce. If Rich men make viable SL clubs then you should add in Widnes, HKR, and Fartown at least. Bradford have a rich man now too.

 

On the subject of contraction where a Superleague clubs competes well and starts to produce players and attracts fans that is actually expansion. Look how far Wigan attract players and fans from? That's expansion.

 

The loss of Bramley and Hunslet to Leeds would not be contraction - that's pins in maps, the success of Leeds against the decline of their neighbours has seen the game stronger in the region.Take the Calder region where there's three clubs. less people are watching, less are playing, now that's contraction.

 

Koucash's defeat was a victory for realism, but beware championing it Bob.

It is a limited claim, but I am probably your biggest fan on here.

 

Sports clubs have three sets of customers: sponsors (public and private), fans, and rich men looking looking for play things.  If a club as a large source of income from these they should be in.  Toulouse and Cats would have a large income from commune and private sponsorship, while Salford have a large income from being a rich man's play thing.  As for rich men making it viable for Hull KR, that is true, but it does make Hull FC less viable.

 

Widnes and Huddersfield were on my mind with the two extra.  My thoughts on Wakefield, Cas and Fev are close to yours.

 

However, what we are looking for is a flagship competition of viable clubs ready to seize a modest market niche and live within their means.  There are two other ideals.

 

One (which I have drifted away from) is to maximise the size of the competition.  We might see two non-viable clubs with crowds of 7000 being replaced by a viable one with 10,000 as making things more viabe, more people would just see it as 4,000 fans lost and they have a strong point.

 

The second vision is that the entire game should be run for the benefit of their local club because they have served their time.  That vision is nonsense and deserves no respect.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#56 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 496 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:32 PM

Are these others in the long line of investors desperate to buy their clubs, or do you really mean just one man?

One man or forty, if he is right then he's right. And frankly he's right.



#57 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:57 PM

One man or forty, if he is right then he's right. And frankly he's right.

 

He is right in so much it serves his own ends.



#58 Segovia Carpet

Segovia Carpet
  • Coach
  • 1,419 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:45 PM

If Koukash knows so much, how come his mega-expensive team is nearer relegation than it is to the playoffs and plays to crowds about the size of that at Featherstone?

 

 

Thats easy to answer.    BRIAN NOBLE   - Biggest mistake Marwan made - Brians days are gone as a coach.  No more 5 Drives and an Up & Under for Salford.



#59 Segovia Carpet

Segovia Carpet
  • Coach
  • 1,419 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:53 PM

Really? How greater is Koucash's wealth than: Davy, Caddick, Leneghan, McManus, Moran?

 

 

£600 million but his horses are having a bad season so maybe £580 million now.   ;)  - I dont think the others are in his League but would stand to be corrected.   All self made by the way so he knows how to run businesses.



#60 Segovia Carpet

Segovia Carpet
  • Coach
  • 1,419 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:58 PM

PARKY WROTE

 

Your wrong on the list with Salford, they don't have resources to be a Superleague club only a rich man to pay for empty seats and buy the players they cannot produce.


Koucash's defeat was a victory for realism, but beware championing it Bob.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Well what rot Parky.  If RL is to be sustainable long term then Salford has to work - there are 1 million NEW fans there.

 

Check out the number of Salford kids about currently doing well @ Salford, Warrington, Leeds etc - Koukash is investing thousands in the Youth set up superbly organised by Alan Hunte.

 

Dont facts get in the way of your thinking please.


Edited by Segovia Carpet, 11 July 2014 - 04:01 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users