Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

Allan Marsden

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Allan Marsden

  1. Parksider not enough time to reply in detail. I enjoy your considered thinking BTW even if we probably disagree.

    Just one quick note. Until the salary cap, We have always imported players from Union. We needed them. The 1920s, 30s ........ 50's, 60's, 70's etc

    The one point I do agree with you on is that unfortunately development areas will always have to have different player rules / quotas etc. However the caveat to that is if we had more players of a certain standard in the heartland then that would help expansion clubs and likewise without a cap they could sign better overseas players.

  2. Parksider,

    I think that unfortunately is the nature of sport and clubs go into administration ad infinitum with or without a cap. So the age old argument by supporters of the cap that it promotes financial stability is clearly not true. Equally true that despite administration / problems etc; clubs rarely fold permanently. There is generally somebody out there willing to invest (waste) money on sport / RL.

    Simon Moran / Steve Connor are wealthy men. Do you think they would invest more without a salary cap? I would imagine such people and many more would sign far better players without a cap than with a cap? Likewise I hate the way an injury totally destroys a club's season. That does not promote high standards / quality.

    We honestly don't know re foreign investment. Football club were not foreign owned in 1995 either IIRC and given RL is a comparatively cheap sport, surely we would see some. We will never know whilst the cap is in place.

    I am sure Widnes fans will never swap the 1988-90 Era. Whatsmore Widnes raised the standards of RL in this country by doing so. If the bar is set higher then the clubs below will improve whereas if you keep the bar at a low level for year after year are you not promoting stagnation and mediocrity?

    Whether on advocates a cap or not it's timing was flawed. You cannot introduce a cap when supply is in such a deficit. Far too many fans grew obsessed with stopping Wigan and whomever and their jealous reaction was a cap when the reality was as Simon pointed out if quality players are few in number they gravitate to the successful club and reinforce their dominance. Shenton illustrates that. Interestingly because I think many supporters of the cap are of a certain generation they don't cry foul of Saints signing Shenton / Mccarthy-scarsbrook. The bottom line IMO is that if the supply of quality players doubles, triples etc then fans will have no need to be bitter and twisted and will get a greeater variation in the clubs that are successful and their own club / the overall standards will get better and better. Unfortunately EVERY club in RL served their own self interest and wasn't prepared to take a smaller cut of the SKY cake to put more money into player supply. IMO this was incredibly short sighted and detrimental to the game. Hence, fans saying oh club X is evil, club Y is evil but my club are wonderful are totally misguided.

    Until we address player supply, a salary cap has the effect of dumbing down standards. Player supply is everything IMO and I much favour a home grown rule over a salary cap. I have yet to see any benefit of the salary cap in it's present guise only negative impacts.

  3. You will have to expand on this paragraph. How would SL be able to attract players from a competition that has far greater wealth, as a collective sport as well as individuals involved.

    If it came to a peeing up the wall competition between SL, NRL and RU Sl's level would be by far the lowest.

    GDMM, The NRL is restricted by its own salary cap. If we did not have a cap and they did then we could sign players that we would not normally sign. Union 'has a cap' (To be honest I am not sure if it a genuine cap and just a token gesture) BUT the KEY is we could raise our own salaries which makes us more competitive in the labour market. At the present time young RL players are walking away. If we had no cap then they and some Union players would be willing to move to SL / British RL.

    No cap also open the door to genuine investors from the U.K or Overseas to invest their money in the game. At the present time no incredibly rich person will invest in a sport that prevent you using that wealth.

    These are short term solutions BTW

    The real solution would have been to address the player supply issue. You should never cap salaries in anything when demand for Labour far outstrips supply. Addressing the supply issue should have been the RFL first priority before introducing a cap. Personally I would abolish the cap but have a home grown player requirement.

  4. I think this is absolutely true. I recommend that everyone reads "What sport tells us about life" by Ed Smith. It is an excellent book and one of the chapters covers the economics of sports wages. In it he reviews some of the work done in comparing the competitiveness of sports in relation to their labour policies.

    I think the real story of Wigan's dominance of the 80s is that the player pool in British RL had become so denuded that there simply weren't enough high quality players to fill the teams playing at the top. Those that were good moved to Wigan partly because of the pay, but also because Wigan was the place to win things and good athletes are motivated by silverware, not pieces of silver. It became self-fulfilling, Wigan won things so you had to move to Wigan to win things. It was a waste of time playing with the second-raters who populated all the other teams.

    I think in the light of the economic studies into wage policies you have to conclude that the salary cap isn't a major factor driving a levelling out of the game. If it's occurring at all it's more likely to be related to the huge increase in playing numbers in the community game and the massive improvements in the systems that bring through elite young players.

    That doesn't mean the salary cap is worthless. Far from it. We still have a small player pool to choose from and it seems that the evidence shows that where this is the case labour restrictions can improve the competitiveness of a league. So until such time as every club in the league is able to field a predominantly "home grown" side it's probably worth sticking with for its levelling effect, limited though it is.

    The second reason for having the salary cap I think is a much stronger one. Quite simply it stops clubs from overspending. Regardless of how arcane the rules are and even if some clubs are finding loopholes the general principle prevents an outbreak of the kind of spiralling wage inflation that could lead to massive financial damage to a number of clubs, big and small.

    Lastly, the evidence presented in studies on labour controls within sports leagues clearly shows the importance of widening the available player pool. It seems obvious when it is said, but it nonetheless needs to be said clearly and often, the health of the game depends almost solely on the ability the game has to attract young players and successfully develop them into elite athletes. The importance of that simply cannot be understated.

    Excellent post Steve

    I asked would it make any difference if we had a salary cap or not. IMO if we removed it then we would increase the the potential supply of labour but more important the quality of labour. V the NRL with a cap we could easily attract many of their best players if we had no cap and increase playing standards in SL V Union we could as we have always done sign talented Union players if we had no cap and playing standard would increase. So immediately playing standards would increase.

    Likewise, under the salary cap injuries to key players cannot be overcome, a team lacking key players due to injury suffers a loss of form and playing standards in SL decline. Castleford and Bradford are two obvious examples of clubs that have suffered owing to injuries to key players.

    The evidence presented in studies on labour controls within sports leagues clearly shows the importance of widening the available player pool. It seems obvious when it is said, but it nonetheless needs to be said clearly and often, the health of the game depends almost solely on the ability the game has to attract young players and successfully develop them into elite athletes. The importance of that simply cannot be understated.

    Why can fans not grasp the above concept?

  5. I think your right (for once). Hudds have some good talent and their best players (apart from Hodgson) are all English.

    Hodgson will make Wire a better side, not only for his kicking but he will offer Wire much more in attack than Mathers.

    Wendall I am always right ;)

    I never bought the Mathers was hard done to be replaced. For all his cheerleading antics I think Hodgson will improved Wire by a significant amount in 2011.

  6. A big weakness that Wigan or Leeds could exploit is Gidley who leaves the defensive line too quickly leaving a hole for a grubber kick behind him.

    An interesting aspect of recent games are kicks getting deflected and tries scored. It was either Jack Gibson or Wayne Bennett that preached to his team not to stick out a foot at balls kicked through when in the defensive line and leave it for the fullback / wingers to mop up behind.

  7. Not sure if it was a deliberate ploy but Saints ran at Lunt and got a lot of joy from it close to Hudds line. I think Saints played well. Defended with gusto and kept it simple with ball in hand. Apparently the Eastmond injury was a new injury so Potter cannot be blamed for that. The man IMO has done a good job in a rebuilding phase for Saints and Saints collectively have achieved more in 2010 than people predicted.

    Huddersfield have some interesting talented players and possibly a few to represent England in 2010 or 2011 and beyond. Hodgson leaves a big hole and Wire should be much better for having him.

  8. No it isnt, it is based on fact and truth as this did actually happen, see Keiths comments for further proof of how he was more than happy to see Town take a fall to save his beloved PSG. Where do I say what if/maybe/could have been. You simply cant see anything wrong with him can you, did he used to tip you well on your paper round or something.

    You clearly either do not read or cannot comprehend DKW

    Firstly. I have PRAISED and CRITICISED Maurice Lindsay. His first stint at Wigan was a fanrastic success. They say never go back and that may be right. He did very well initially but it turned sour and he became a puppet for Dave Whelan and the handling of Mike Gregory will always be criticised by Wigan fans including myself.

    RE Workington. READ and UNDERSTOOD proof is objective evidence that you can support. What you and Keith are putting forward is pure subjective conjecture. Cumbrian Clubs have for a long time been mismanaged. Maurice Lindsay did not panic and boot Peter Walsh or is that another Lindsay conspiracy theory? As I said previously NO Lindsay and yet the RFL / the member clubs continued and still do to look after themselves and shaft anybody else including Cumbrian clubs. The RL family has never really existed.

    RE Wigan / Maurice Lindsay. What fans of other clubs need to understand is that Wigan's success was BUILT by 4 MEN all were vital. Lindsay as the front man bore the brunt of the spite and jealousy from other RL fans Yet he was 1 of 4. The jealous / bitter have no idea how important Jack Hilton was, why because he was in the background. Yet Hilton, Rathbon, Robinson and Lindsay TOGETHER was the key. Lindsay and Robinson on their own both had limitations and never achieved the same heights.

    Wigan was built by 4 MEN

  9. :lol: Hail Lindsay or you cannot understand professional sport, beautiful.

    The Lindsay era was dire, only a small handful benefited, but still, congratulate him on getting a sky deal anybody half competent could have done also.

    Lindsay and the rest of the gang of 4 raised the profile of RL in this country so EVERYBODY benefitted. That period saw British RL come closest to closing the gap on Australia and but for Lee Jackson taking a dummy and a last gasp dummy we could have won an Ashes. Individually, Lindsay was the man that revitalised the WCC to give several clubs some of the greatest moments in their history.

    I understand that does not suit your bitterness hence why I think you are far better suited to watching Amateur RL.

  10. Nip and tuck early in the 2nd half but then Hudd conceded a succession of penalties and simply could not defend their 20 v Saints. The match was well officiated by Bentham so neither team can have any complaints. Saints were the deserved winner. Whomever they play will need to keep Saints away from their own try line particularly when Graham, Cunningham and Puletua are on the field. Well done Mick Potter.

  11. Maximus IMO and I know some Widnes fans think the same that having ticked the box for playing standards the commitment and desire throughout 2010 has been lacking and was certainly less than would have been had Widnes still been striving to tick that box. Widnes this season remind me of numerous team when we had the double season switching from Winter to Summer RL. Motivation has simply been badly lacking. Fans might say ah but Paul Cullen was missing but in many respects the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Paul Cullen should have galvanised the team.

  12. Thats all you have then?

    He's a disgrace to the sport.

    It wasn't deserving of anything else Matt.

    Like anybody Lindsay has done things well and things badly BUT his good makes him a credit to the sport and somebody who did far more than you or I ever did.

    I often think many fans need to just go and watch amateur RL. The concept of professional sport is too difficult for them to comprehend and perhaps not alevel of sport that they can enjoy.

  13. Maurice Lindsay thinks he revolutionised the game which is different to reality. He was merely a pawn or a puppet of Murdoch in his quest to gain power of Australian Rugby League in the pay to view war with Kerry Packer.

    Murdoch needed to get the British game on board to strengthen his case and Lindsay happened to be in the right position at the time this came about. It could have been anyone but it happened to be Lindsay.

    It was Lindsay who wanted a team in Paris and he did everything in his power to ensure that he got that team. It was this that caused so many problems for Workington Town because come hell or high water he was determined that Paris would finish above Town at the end of the season and so not be relegated.

    Paris that season had over 70 players and most of them were not British. Two players were supposed to be coming to play for Town but were somehow "waylaid" and ended up at PSG. John Kear at the time was employed as the Director of Coaching Development at the RFL and he was sent across to PSG to, in his own words on Sky, to ensure that PSG finish above Workington. Next Lindsay himself and Harry Jepson went over to Paris and became directors of PSG and of course we won't mention the dubious win that Paris had in the last match of the season which saw Town relegated.

    The following season it was Oldham's turn to compete with PSG but in the end the debts at Paris got so high that the project was brought to a halt with debts of over

  • Create New...