Marquee allowance

[scotchy]

Thank you for that information. If it's 7-5 against then it maybe won't happen, but even if it did and it came in I'd be interested in your model of who you think they may get and how the fans would flock to see these people.

As has been suggested in this thread the Marquee player rule could well work for your five by allowing them to have a bigger salary cap to the value of a player each they could never compete with NRL/RU for, but get them an edge to stay in the eight

There is a world of difference between a few chairmen contriving to up their cap to keep themselves ahead of the game, and your view that they can be released to spend several hundred thousand on one superstar player each who they will actually get and will then up the crowds and provide a return on their investment.........

Who will the five be chasing? How much will they have to pay, how many more fans through the gate to get that return??

Or is there no real business plan here, just a ruse to keep ahead of the competition rather than enhance Superleagues attractiveness and profitability.

Please tell me your not in favour because Leeds will get another decent player and others wont??

How many fans would Gareth Widdop add to the Leeds crowds do you think?

the argument here is descending in to the same nonsense question. 'Who will they sign' it's a nonsense question because a) none of us know, or are responsible for who they will sign and it's not up to us to define who is a marquee signing.

Leeds may choose to spend their marquee exemption on Greg Inglis, they may choose to spend it on Sam Rapira, they may choose to spend it on keeping Kallum Watkins. Whichever they choose will define the success or failure of Leeds not the success or failure of the marquee exemption.

The marquee exemption allows clubs to buy a player outside of the cap. It's not an ideal, it's not a perfect solution, it simply allows a club to get 1 player outside the cap.

Some clubs will parlay this into a world class player who brings in fans and sponsors, shifts merchandise, performs on the field and more than pays for himself. Some clubs won't. Such is life.

Some clubs will have a business plan, some clubs would would pick up SBW and have him pimped out to every business in their area, would sell an extra 5k shirts, would raise their profile and get more and bigger sponsors. Some won't. I'm happy for the clubs that can do that. I'm ambivalent about those who can't or won't use opportunities like those presented by a star name to its fullest.

If Cas can't afford SBW but Leeds can, the answer is for Cas to grow their business not hold leeds back.

The biggest and most important thing it does is remove the huge sign which currently hangs over SL which reads 'Super League is not the place for world class talent'.

This thread itself is full of fans of our game, people who actually support the bloody game telling us no world class talent will come here, and the fans of this game will also tell you any British player worth his salt has to go test himself in the NRL.

We must be the only sport in the world to think we are best served by making sure the best players aren't playing our game.

[sweaty craiq]

the argument here is descending in to the same nonsense question. 'Who will they sign' it's a nonsense question because a) none of us know, or are responsible for who they will sign and it's not up to us to define who is a marquee signing.

Leeds may choose to spend their marquee exemption on Greg Inglis, they may choose to spend it on Sam Rapira, they may choose to spend it on keeping Kallum Watkins. Whichever they choose will define the success or failure of Leeds not the success or failure of the marquee exemption.

The marquee exemption allows clubs to buy a player outside of the cap. It's not an ideal, it's not a perfect solution, it simply allows a club to get 1 player outside the cap.

Some clubs will parlay this into a world class player who brings in fans and sponsors, shifts merchandise, performs on the field and more than pays for himself. Some clubs won't. Such is life.

Some clubs will have a business plan, some clubs would would pick up SBW and have him pimped out to every business in their area, would sell an extra 5k shirts, would raise their profile and get more and bigger sponsors. Some won't. I'm happy for the clubs that can do that. I'm ambivalent about those who can't or won't use opportunities like those presented by a star name to its fullest.

If Cas can't afford SBW but Leeds can, the answer is for Cas to grow their business not hold leeds back.

The biggest and most important thing it does is remove the huge sign which currently hangs over SL which reads 'Super League is not the place for world class talent'.

This thread itself is full of fans of our game, people who actually support the bloody game telling us no world class talent will come here, and the fans of this game will also tell you any British player worth his salt has to go test himself in the NRL.

We must be the only sport in the world to think we are best served by making sure the best players aren't playing our game.

 

I totally agree again

[thundergaz]

the argument here is descending in to the same nonsense question. 'Who will they sign' it's a nonsense question because a) none of us know, or are responsible for who they will sign and it's not up to us to define who is a marquee signing.

Leeds may choose to spend their marquee exemption on Greg Inglis, they may choose to spend it on Sam Rapira, they may choose to spend it on keeping Kallum Watkins. Whichever they choose will define the success or failure of Leeds not the success or failure of the marquee exemption.

The marquee exemption allows clubs to buy a player outside of the cap. It's not an ideal, it's not a perfect solution, it simply allows a club to get 1 player outside the cap.

Some clubs will parlay this into a world class player who brings in fans and sponsors, shifts merchandise, performs on the field and more than pays for himself. Some clubs won't. Such is life.

Some clubs will have a business plan, some clubs would would pick up SBW and have him pimped out to every business in their area, would sell an extra 5k shirts, would raise their profile and get more and bigger sponsors. Some won't. I'm happy for the clubs that can do that. I'm ambivalent about those who can't or won't use opportunities like those presented by a star name to its fullest.

If Cas can't afford SBW but Leeds can, the answer is for Cas to grow their business not hold leeds back.

The biggest and most important thing it does is remove the huge sign which currently hangs over SL which reads 'Super League is not the place for world class talent'.

This thread itself is full of fans of our game, people who actually support the bloody game telling us no world class talent will come here, and the fans of this game will also tell you any British player worth his salt has to go test himself in the NRL.

We must be the only sport in the world to think we are best served by making sure the best players aren't playing our game.

I'm all for this marquee thing myself. But won't it widen the gap between the top teams and lower teams in SL? I know the gap is their at the moment but won't this make the comp even more lopsided? Same with if we increase the salary cap the above will happen. I don't know what the answer is myself TBH but something's got to give somewhere along the line because like you say the smaller clubs are holding the bigger clubs back. But then again what do you do with the champ salary cap/marquee signing? As its massively weighed against the champ clubs as it is. Like I say I don't have the answer and I agree something needs to be done to help the game move forward and not hold back the big clubs anymore.

[scotchy]

I'm all for this marquee thing myself. But won't it widen the gap between the top teams and lower teams in SL? I know the gap is their at the moment but won't this make the comp even more lopsided? Same with if we increase the salary cap the above will happen. I don't know what the answer is myself TBH but something's got to give somewhere along the line because like you say the smaller clubs are holding the bigger clubs back. But then again what do you do with the champ salary cap/marquee signing? As its massively weighed against the champ clubs as it is. Like I say I don't have the answer and I agree something needs to be done to help the game move forward and not hold back the big clubs anymore.

it possibly will. But not necessarily because of anything inherent to a marquee exemption but because unfortunately in many cases smaller clubs are smaller for a reason.

However I think this kind of thing may make it easier for a smaller club to get a quality player. There will be fans and sponsors who may not wish or be able to sponsor of gift to the club as a while but may for a marquee player.

Let's be honest we are talking generally of 2-300k here. It's not an out of this world sum.

[Dave T]

If this were to come in, I think it would certainly add some excitement, and I expect my club would do well out of it, and I would be interested to see who was signed. I'll leave it to the blokes paying the money to decide if they can afford it, but there is no doubt as a fan it would generate a bit of excitement, even if it just meant we had one extra player like Tomkins in SL.

 

I can absolutely see benefits of it. 

 

Now, I would 100% be against voting something in based on:

1 - clubs go bust anyway, so it doesn't matter

2 - that's life if clubs waste money

3 - it would hardly bankrupt anyone

4 - businesses can't grow cutting costs

 

On the above:

1 - if clubs go bust under pretty restrictive spend rules, imagine what could happen without them, it seems a perverse argument to me

2 - we should only put things in where the benefits look strong. If we suspect that most will waste it, that's not a great starting point.

3 - I agree with the numbers knocking around here that a Marquee player would probably be on the £250-£450k pa band, maybe more if you wanted to be really bold. If a club signs a player on a three year contract worth £1.3m and he is a flop and the owner leaves - who picks up this additional money, that pretty much most clubs can't afford at the moment?

4 - effective cost management is a crucial part of running a successful business.

 

Ultimately, the decision should be based on reward vs risk - personally I'm not sure the rewards are great enough to bring that level of risk into our comp, but that's just my view.

[scotchy]

If this were to come in, I think it would certainly add some excitement, and I expect my club would do well out of it, and I would be interested to see who was signed. I'll leave it to the blokes paying the money to decide if they can afford it, but there is no doubt as a fan it would generate a bit of excitement, even if it just meant we had one extra player like Tomkins in SL.

I can absolutely see benefits of it.

Now, I would 100% be against voting something in based on:

1 - clubs go bust anyway, so it doesn't matter

2 - that's life if clubs waste money

3 - it would hardly bankrupt anyone

4 - businesses can't grow cutting costs

On the above:

1 - if clubs go bust under pretty restrictive spend rules, imagine what could happen without them, it seems a perverse argument to me

2 - we should only put things in where the benefits look strong. If we suspect that most will waste it, that's not a great starting point.

3 - I agree with the numbers knocking around here that a Marquee player would probably be on the £250-£450k pa band, maybe more if you wanted to be really bold. If a club signs a player on a three year contract worth £1.3m and he is a flop and the owner leaves - who picks up this additional money, that pretty much most clubs can't afford at the moment?

4 - effective cost management is a crucial part of running a successful business.

Ultimately, the decision should be based on reward vs risk - personally I'm not sure the rewards are great enough to bring that level of risk into our comp, but that's just my view.

there are two ways to look at a company which isn't making a profit.

It is either spending too much

Or

Not bringing enough in.

After 15 years of falling wages and a real tern fall from 4.8m to 1.8m. I find it hard to believe the argument we are spending to much.

[Dave T]

there are two ways to look at a company which isn't making a profit.

It is either spending too much

Or

Not bringing enough in.

After 15 years of falling wages and a real tern fall from 4.8m to 1.8m. I find it hard to believe the argument we are spending to much.

Yep, those stats are interesting.

 

Would be interesting to know how income streams and wages have moved across the top division during that period, as it does seem strange.

[The Parksider]

The argument here is descending in to the same nonsense question. 'Who will they sign' it's a nonsense question because a) none of us know, or are responsible for who they will sign and it's not up to us to define who is a marquee signing. Leeds may choose to spend their marquee exemption on Greg Inglis,

Some clubs will have a business plan, some clubs would would pick up SBW and have him pimped out to every business in their area, would sell an extra 5k shirts, would raise their profile and get more and bigger sponsors. 

 

You can't dismiss a good question just by describing it as "nonsense" and you may note that in the end you knew you had to answer it.

 

But answer it you have. so how much money will Leeds have to spend to get Greg Inglis? or SBW?(see posts below) Once Greg jets in what do you think the crowds will go up to? Will 5,000 Leeds fans buy new shirts with one in three wearing an Inglis shirt? How much would SBW cost then? Would either of them come to Superleague??

 

Because if their value to Leeds exceeds their cost hence "It's a good investment" then surely Leeds will have to enter a bidding war against NRL and RU clubs to get these players a point you have ignored again and again but need to answer for credibility.

 

As has been pointed out by Redjohn I think, the bigger profile RU and NRL have the capacity to "pimp" these players out to far more willing and richer sponsors in far bigger profile and far richer sports than ours (see posts below). "Good investments" in such short supply as Inglis and SBW are things you have to outbid other clubs to get.

 

When these lads next become available to the highest bidder through their agents and Leeds are sat there next to top NRL, and top RU clubs, bidding how really will they make such signings? Why on earth would these lads come. 

[The Parksider]

Leeds may choose to spend their marquee exemption on keeping Kallum Watkins. 

We must be the only sport in the world to think we are best served by making sure the best players aren't playing our game.

 

I'm interested in this different idea that a Marquee player is someone you already have signed on your books and is playing regularly!!

 

How many new sponsors will re-signing Watkins on quadruple wages bring in to Leeds?

How many thousands of fans will flock to Headingley to see the "Marquee" signing?

Will 5,000 "Kallum" shirts be flooding out the club shop?

 

Away from the fantasy world of SL clubs signing top top players from under the nose of richer sports who offer these players richer rewards, we seem to be getting down to the nitty gritty of YOUR club being able to keep Watkins by being able to spend what it takes, then being able to use the rest of the full cap on paying for the rest of the squad minus Watkins.

 

It's a win win for Leeds, a great ploy to get their salaries up and keep themselves at the top of the tree. 

[The Parksider]

 

1. I'm ambivalent about those who can't or won't use opportunities like those presented by a star name to its fullest.

If Cas can't afford SBW but Leeds can, the answer is for Cas to grow their business not hold leeds back.

2. This thread itself is full of fans of our game, people who actually support the bloody game telling us no world class talent will come here. We must be the only sport in the world to think we are best served by making sure the best players aren't playing our game.

 

1. Hold Leeds back from what? Another six Superleage trophies??

 

Ten years ago Leeds crowds were 17,000 and all that success has reduced them to 14,500 now?

 

Now they have an ageing team they are frightened they can't replenish, and a poor sixth place finish last year is anyone not surprised that Gary Hetherington wants to dump a "we don't overpay anyone, we are fair to our players and stand firm against excessive demands" policy??

 

Sound like a fantastic way to protect the team from further demise Scotchy.

 

2. This thread is certainly full of people being realistic about such issues. You have shown no realism on this at all. As for "Making sure the best players aren't playing our game" what you seem to be suggesting is if Castleford were the one vote that perhaps blocked Leeds being able to secure Watkins for the future, then the wicked Castleford would be holding the game back.

 

But you assume that Leeds are somehow an island and that a competitive Castleford or Bradford is something Leeds do not need. When these clubs can compete they swell the Headingley crowds and their own crowds in exciting Superleague matches that help sell the game for £200,000,000 a contract.

 

Do you really think paying Kallum Watkins half a £Million a year will be good for the game??

 

Try to address the points I make, don't have a go at me. It's all just a debate between fellow RL fans. 

[The Parksider]

All the options before Inglis & his agent through both England and France.

 

“Bath — have been speaking with them for a little while and met with them in Bath during the week. They are super keen but want to move quickly,” the agent said.“It is a very picturesque city and would be the pick of places to live in England.

 

“Toulouse — they are a huge club, “They have a private sponsor for the Marquee position, so could potentially pay around £720,000. plus accommodation, car, flights, agents fees etc. but won’t know until we start speaking money if it gets to that.”

 

“The other issue for Greg is that if he switches to union, all of a sudden he’s playing a ­global game and he can expect that Nikes and the Adidas’ will want to get on board and he can get some very decent money (maybe around £144,000 per year),” the­ ­European-based agent also ­revealed.

[The Parksider]

Meanwhile back in Australia......

 

"While the introduction of the player retention fund brought sound applause around the game few have bothered to peel back even one layer and consider what a disastrous affect it will have on the NRL competition.

 

How would the fans of 15 other clubs feel if the NRL helped South Sydney, the game’s best team, retain the team’s best player?

 

So, effectively, while the 15 other clubs would all be operating on their £3.5 million salary cap next year (double Superleagues) the Rabbitohs’ payroll would be pushing £4 million.

 

One of the game’s great assets has always been its evenness.

 

Cherry-picked player payments seriously corrupt that"

[thundergaz]

All the options before Inglis & his agent through both England and France.

“Bath — have been speaking with them for a little while and met with them in Bath during the week. They are super keen but want to move quickly,” the agent said.“It is a very picturesque city and would be the pick of places to live in England.

“Toulouse — they are a huge club, “They have a private sponsor for the Marquee position, so could potentially pay around £720,000. plus accommodation, car, flights, agents fees etc. but won’t know until we start speaking money if it gets to that.”

“The other issue for Greg is that if he switches to union, all of a sudden he’s playing a ­global game and he can expect that Nikes and the Adidas’ will want to get on board and he can get some very decent money (maybe around £144,000 per year),” the­ ­European-based agent also ­revealed.

Again that's where the problem lies. I mean I doubt a marquee allowance would enable us to keep all our stars in SL because what happens if say bath want Zak and say Watkins Leeds would only be allowed to keep one. Then if you scrap the cap all together we have a lopsided comp its all swings and roundabouts parky. Like I say I don't have the answer myself and I think its going to be extremely hard to keep our stars and not make a lopsided comp no matter what we end up doing.

[Dave T]

Meanwhile back in Australia......

"While the introduction of the player retention fund brought sound applause around the game few have bothered to peel back even one layer and consider what a disastrous affect it will have on the NRL competition.

How would the fans of 15 other clubs feel if the NRL helped South Sydney, the game’s best team, retain the team’s best player?

So, effectively, while the 15 other clubs would all be operating on their $6.7 million salary cap next year the Rabbitohs’ payroll would be pushing $8 million.

One of the game’s great assets has always been its evenness.

Cherry-picked player payments seriously corrupt that"

didnt we have something similar a while back, seem to remember Cunningham and a few others getting an rfl payment.

I dont like it one bit, central contracts can do this job, but with next to no internationals cant be justified. Now, if we had a proper international game....

[The Parksider]

Didnt we have something similar a while back, seem to remember Cunningham and a few others getting an rfl payment.

 

That's one good memory.........

[The Parksider]

1. Again that's where the problem lies. I mean I doubt a marquee allowance would enable us to keep all our stars in SL because what happens if say bath want Zak and say Watkins Leeds would only be allowed to keep one.

 

2. Then if you scrap the cap all together we have a lopsided comp 

 

1. Thats a brilliant point and why you cannot say "I don't care" about clubs joining in with this scheme.

If we are to have a one per club marquee allowance we want all 12 clubs to be able to join in the scheme and at best bring in Inglis, SBW, Thurston, Cronk, George Ford, those two England RU three quarters who look great, Thaiday, Slater, Burgess, Tomkins and Graham.£10,000,000 a year should do it. 

 

2. But the reality is if only Leeds (Caddick) Warrington( Moran)  Davy (Fartown) Lenegan (Wigan) and Koukash (salford) do this then it gives only 5 clubs a very tidy edge indeed.

 

This mob haven't missed the fact that in effect we are to run with an 8 club "Elite" (Dave T - I won't call it "Superleague"!!) and these boys are desperate to be in it, and well in it and stay in it.

 

I personally believe staying in the elite will help those in there grow anyway, Crowd revenues will grow for them as they get third plum fixtures against each other, Conversely the lower clubs are not IMHO (but we await to see what happens) going to benefit from being dropped out of Superleague to play Championship play off. That's not where their players will want to be and not what their fans will prefer to watch.

 

I think this Marquee thing is fantasy if it's intended to benefit the game, but what fits the sudden drive towards it is the self interest of a few big clubs. 

[sweaty craiq]

The journey we are on should improve the elite which in turn improves the sport. It should also challenge those outside the elite to raise their game or fall behind, or even to fall out of SL by providing the opportunity for non SL clubs to replace them.

The success of the international team will be from the success of the elite - who would make the 17 for England from outside the elite if the team was picked today?

Get rid of the cap.

[thundergaz]

The journey we are on should improve the elite which in turn improves the sport. It should also challenge those outside the elite to raise their game or fall behind, or even to fall out of SL by providing the opportunity for non SL clubs to replace them.

The success of the international team will be from the success of the elite - who would make the 17 for England from outside the elite if the team was picked today?

Get rid of the cap.

If we do get rid of the cap then we have the big clubs dominating the sport even further. But that wouldn't be my biggest worry, my biggest worry would be teams filling their squads full of journey men hence killing our international game. How many of our england squad would make it down under that haven't already? I can count on one hand how many would maybe make it let alone make it. So then their comes the bring in the Aussies kiwis comment and fill our squads full of them as they are the best players out their.

[The Parksider]

The journey we are on should improve the elite which in turn improves the sport. It should also challenge those outside the elite to raise their game or fall behind, or even to fall out of SL by providing the opportunity for non SL clubs to replace them.

 

What do you mean by the empty phrase "raise their game"?

 

The only way small northern town clubs can "raise their game" is via rich chairman.

 

Your being "Bullish" here (no I don't mean your a Bradford fan!)

 

How rich is Beaumont and what has he put in roughly to fund the drive to SL and how much more can he provide?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

If we do get rid of the cap then we have the big clubs dominating the sport even further. But that wouldn't be my biggest worry, my biggest worry would be teams filling their squads full of journey men hence killing our international game. How many of our england squad would make it down under that haven't already? I can count on one hand how many would maybe make it let alone make it. So then their comes the bring in the Aussies kiwis comment and fill our squads full of them as they are the best players out their.

Isn't that what the quota is for, not the cap?

[thundergaz]

Isn't that what the quota is for, not the cap?

Yes but surely if the cap is scraped the big money clubs will want the quota scraped too surely won't they?

[Tre Cool]

If we have a marquee allowance it absolutely has to be for England qualifying players only, we won't attract the top top Aussies anyway so we have to use it to keep our own talent in SL or to attract English union talent to RL.  Otherwise it'll be spent on second rate Aussies or 30 year old top Aussies after a retirement pot.

[scotchy]

You can't dismiss a good question just by describing it as "nonsense" and you may note that in the end you knew you had to answer it.

 

But answer it you have. so how much money will Leeds have to spend to get Greg Inglis? or SBW?(see posts below) Once Greg jets in what do you think the crowds will go up to? Will 5,000 Leeds fans buy new shirts with one in three wearing an Inglis shirt? How much would SBW cost then? Would either of them come to Superleague??

 

Because if their value to Leeds exceeds their cost hence "It's a good investment" then surely Leeds will have to enter a bidding war against NRL and RU clubs to get these players a point you have ignored again and again but need to answer for credibility.

 

As has been pointed out by Redjohn I think, the bigger profile RU and NRL have the capacity to "pimp" these players out to far more willing and richer sponsors in far bigger profile and far richer sports than ours (see posts below). "Good investments" in such short supply as Inglis and SBW are things you have to outbid other clubs to get.

 

When these lads next become available to the highest bidder through their agents and Leeds are sat there next to top NRL, and top RU clubs, bidding how really will they make such signings? Why on earth would these lads come. 

i haven't dismissed a good question, I dismissed a nonsense question and explained to you why it is nonsense. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Yes but surely if the cap is scraped the big money clubs will want the quota scraped too surely won't they?

That's a separate argument though. You can't just lump them together.

If the quota is reinforced (it seems to have gone by the way side recently which is a shame because I thought the non federation rules worked well), the marquee system or abolishing the cap wouldn't be affected by journey men.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

If we have a marquee allowance it absolutely has to be for England qualifying players only, we won't attract the top top Aussies anyway so we have to use it to keep our own talent in SL or to attract English union talent to RL. Otherwise it'll be spent on second rate Aussies or 30 year old top Aussies after a retirement pot.

Shouldn't that be the club's choice though? Won't playing amongst high quality players (no matter where they are from) benefit the English players that play with and against them?