Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Daddy_merged

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

210 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exactly, it won't stop other players looking at union and the nrl for better deals. In fact it may increase it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

one of those players will already be earning more than the others. or alternatively you could pay them all £200k each but only one wont count.

Its quite a simple concept. Just because you can pay one player twice or three times what others earn shouldnt necessarily mean you do.

I dont agree with the concept for other reasons but I dont understand the concerns you and a couple others have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It could be that the British game just can't compete with the NRL at this time, so why bother.

 

I can certainly see it benefiting the England team enormously. The top players leave for the NRL, they are replaced by up and coming players developed by the clubs - thus solving the problem that the youngsters sometimes don't get the breaks. In the meantime, England's squad members - potentially a whole squad according to Andy Wilson - develop even further in Australia, get to play against (and with) the best players in the world and the England team improves out of all recognition.

 

In the meantime, an England residents squad gets to play in Europe during the regular season.

The standard of Super League will suffer, though, along with the next offer from Sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that the British game just can't compete with the NRL at this time, so why bother.

I can certainly see it benefiting the England team enormously. The top players leave for the NRL, they are replaced by up and coming players developed by the clubs - thus solving the problem that the youngsters sometimes don't get the breaks. In the meantime, England's squad members - potentially a whole squad according to Andy Wilson - develop even further in Australia, get to play against (and with) the best players in the world and the England team improves out of all recognition.

In the meantime, an England residents squad gets to play in Europe during the regular season.

The standard of Super League will suffer, though, along with the next offer from Sky.

havent people said that every time a player went to Union?

The players in sl change all the time, players retire, go to uniin or whatever, as long as we have a comp followed by decent numbers watched by plenty, Sky will be interested in paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

havent people said that every time a player went to Union?

The players in sl change all the time, players retire, go to uniin or whatever, as long as we have a comp followed by decent numbers watched by plenty, Sky will be interested in paying.

 

Some people almost certainly would have said that, but if Wilson is correct that almost the whole England squad will be in Australia in a year's time then that is quite a 'quality shock'; and one that may make Sky sit up and take notice. Still, interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

In the case quoted, if it was me, neither of them as I don't consider them worthy enough.

 

Using Wire as the example, I would have Briers as my marquee player and pay him whatever it takes to keep him going around again. I would then use whatever cap space was consequently freed up to put Hill, Ratchford and Myler on better deals. Then when Briers can no longer walk around a rugby field in a couple of years time, I would use the marquee allowance to try and sign Cronk from the NRL. Or I might give it to Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case quoted, if it was me, neither of them as I don't consider them worthy enough.

 

Using Wire as the example, I would have Briers as my marquee player and pay him whatever it takes to keep him going around again. I would then use whatever cap space was consequently freed up to put Hill, Ratchford and Myler on better deals. Then when Briers can no longer walk around a rugby field in a couple of years time, I would use the marquee allowance to try and sign Cronk from the NRL. Or I might give it to Hill.

Briers can't walk around a field now, his days have gone, he should be playing for pin money not marquee wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly disagree with anyone that thinks that's the way forward.

I'll put it another way: that approach is a surefire way BACKWARD and would kill the sport at the elite level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parksider's argument against the marquee player rule has a lot of merit to it.

Perhaps we should just scrap the cap altogether (it's not like its fulfilled either of its stated aims) but retain something akin to the old 20-20 rule to stop clubs stockpiling players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

havent people said that every time a player went to Union?

The players in sl change all the time, players retire, go to uniin or whatever, as long as we have a comp followed by decent numbers watched by plenty, Sky will be interested in paying.

I'll go with that.

SKY don't pay us the sum the viewing figures and the quality of competition and exciting sport justify.

Apparently they pay us just enough to run professionally so they can fill their summer schedule.

So if they just pay "a sum" for "a filler" why would they bother what happens as long as there's RL to show when RU and soccer aren't around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widnes pulled in some great crowds for second rate RL. They got plenty of 3,000 plus attendances, probably because the fans saw the club was going places.

You'll need over twice that and more in Superleague.

The cliques are "Fantasy RL" where the small clubs will all grow through sheer hard work to be superleague clubs aided by SKY spending millions on our second tier, whilst we have "Reality RL" where the facts are faced.

And the fact is mr. Nahaboo is going to try to make you a Superleague club with his money, so by all means join us.....

Widnes has a population of 58k. Featherstone has a population of 15k.

In the modern world a town of 15k can't realistically support a competitive Super League club. The owner might want to put in money but we all know what will happen when that dries up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widnes has a population of 58k. Featherstone has a population of 15k.

In the modern world a town of 15k can't realistically support a competitive Super League club. The owner might want to put in money but we all know what will happen when that dries up.

 

:O  You can't say that on here!!!   :O   ..as you'llsoon  find out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widnes has a population of 58k. Featherstone has a population of 15k.

In the modern world a town of 15k can't realistically support a competitive Super League club. The owner might want to put in money but we all know what will happen when that dries up.

But there's not only featherstone to draw crowds from, there's pontefract, knottingley , ackworth, hemsworth etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.