Marquee allowance

[scotchy]

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. 

Again, the same nonsense, different hypothetical player.

 

You have however strayed in to even more ridiculous territory, if your idea for spreading the talent is that leeds scout, train, and blood quality players, and others catch up because those players go and play NRL or RU, then the game in your head is completely and utterly and unapologetically fubar for one simple reason. Leeds wont stop trying to win. They will stop paying for the scouting, training, facilities, coaching, and the time and effort necessary to bring through and blood a Kallum Watkins and the game wont produce them at all.

 

Its absolutely mental that you think the time effort and money leeds put in to creating Kallum Watkins should not only not be rewarded, but should hang around Leeds neck like an albatross dragging down Leeds ability to compete for other players.

 

Now you may wish to portray this as me pushing the self interest of my club (which is awfully convenient, and does make me wonder whether the benefit of doubt I give you that you are honest, and passionate if occasionally misguided, was a little naïve) but you would be demonstrably wrong. My club has lost Lee Smith and Chev Walker to RU, and Richie Mathers and Luke Burgess to NRL. Our Rivals have lost Eastmond, Graham, Tomkins, Ashton, Burgess x 4, and Mossop. I think we might put that in the plus column to be honest.

 

That other leagues and sports keep taking our rivals best players makes it easier for Leeds, but then being the worlds tallest dwarf is not much of an achievement.

[Dave T]

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.

If we are focusing on retaining top British talent, i'd rather we make the investment through central contracts. We should have the England squad playing 8-10 games per year and the RFL/SLE funding central contracts. 

[thundergaz]

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.

I hope the marquee system is for English players but I can't see it myself if I'm being honest. I'm sure the big money clubs will be looking to bring in Aussies and kiwis before they look at our own talent I reckon. Hope I'm wrong but I can see SL clubs letting say hall go so they can bring in a big name kiwi Aussie that's just my opinion though. For example bath might go in for say hall and leeds might turn round and say you can have him we will go out and get a better marquee signing from down under.

[scotchy]

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. 

1. well no, pretty obviously from competing for the worlds best players.

 

btw, Hetherington put forward the marquee vote 4 years ago.

 

2. it isn't about people being realistic at all. Its about people being absolutely terrified of change, of people who would rather see us shrink at the rate we are now than try and change things.

 

Castleford outright told us their reasons for voting against it. They couldn't afford it so didn't want others to have it. That's it. they didn't want RL in this country to be able to attract the best talent in the world because they might be left behind. I have 0 sympathy for that stand point.

 

If Cas can't compete, they can't compete. They drop out and some one else has a go.

 

I don't believe, I am absolutely certain that paying Watkins £500k is far better for the game than seeing him playing for our rivals.

[The Parksider]

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 attract English union talent to RL.  

The 2014/15 English RU Salary Cap was announced on 21 January 2014 confirming the following:

• £4.76 million - Senior Salary Cap
• £240,000 - Academy Credits
• 1 Excluded Player (Salary is not included in the Salary Cap)
• Injury Replacement

 

They therefore can spend well over twice than us and more as they have academy and injury replacement allowances,  and they can compete separately for marquee players already - unlimited.

 

Who are we going to invest in from RU? Who will come?? How much??? what will the return be????  and will that return be dependant on the player performing as a true marquee player?????

 

Or shall we skip all the fine details again.

[scotchy]

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.

Say Watkins is on 200k a year now and wants 500k, Hardaker is on 200k and wants 400k.

 

Leeds offer Watkins a marquee contract of £500k, meaning that his 200k comes off the cap and they now have 400k to offer hardaker and keep them both.

 

However in principle you are right because then what do Leeds do with Hall? Or if Singleton carries on his development? Or Ward does? or Lilley reaches his potential?

 

So we could scrap the cap for youth developed players, but that would just entrench the status quo. Why is Kallum Watkins going to sign for Salford as a 16 year old when he could sign for Leeds or Wigan, get the wages AND be in for titles straight away?

 

We could scrap the cap entirely, again, as you say a lopsided competition may ensue. A Wigan 2. Now I don't think we will ever stop having a lopsided comp They game lends itself to a team dominating some games and seeing big scores. We would like less but I don't think the SC is achieving that very well.

 

So what is the answer,

 

as I say, squad limits.

 

25 players over 25k this means one team cant horde all the talent. They only have 25 full time pros and then you are dipping into youth players. Its a squad game these days and pretty much every side will use more than 25 players a season, so you still need good depth from your youngsters.

 

No more than 5 overseas players. Pretty self explanatory. Salford cant go out and sign the NSW side as people seem to be worried about if they can only get 5 overseas players.

 

no more than 10 players in your squad who have played SL for another side in the last 3 years (U21's are exempt) means you can't go out and buy all the SL talent. But you can get some.

 

no fewer than 7 players in the matchday 17 that either made their SL debut for that side or are U21 exempt. Increases the emphasis on players developed by the club.

[Allora]

Again, the same nonsense, different hypothetical player.

 

You have however strayed in to even more ridiculous territory, if your idea for spreading the talent is that leeds scout, train, and blood quality players, and others catch up because those players go and play NRL or RU, then the game in your head is completely and utterly and unapologetically fubar for one simple reason. Leeds wont stop trying to win. They will stop paying for the scouting, training, facilities, coaching, and the time and effort necessary to bring through and blood a Kallum Watkins and the game wont produce them at all.

 

Its absolutely mental that you think the time effort and money leeds put in to creating Kallum Watkins should not only not be rewarded, but should hang around Leeds neck like an albatross dragging down Leeds ability to compete for other players.

 

Now you may wish to portray this as me pushing the self interest of my club (which is awfully convenient, and does make me wonder whether the benefit of doubt I give you that you are honest, and passionate if occasionally misguided, was a little naïve) but you would be demonstrably wrong. My club has lost Lee Smith and Chev Walker to RU, and Richie Mathers and Luke Burgess to NRL. Our Rivals have lost Eastmond, Graham, Tomkins, Ashton, Burgess x 4, and Mossop. I think we might put that in the plus column to be honest.

 

That other leagues and sports keep taking our rivals best players makes it easier for Leeds, but then being the worlds tallest dwarf is not much of an achievement.

Which one of those highlighted are top players?

Pretty much bog standard or worse, how Luke Burgess has won a contract at Manly is a mystery.

[Allora]

Say Watkins is on 200k a year now and wants 500k, Hardaker is on 200k and wants 400k.

 

Leeds offer Watkins a marquee contract of £500k, meaning that his 200k comes off the cap and they now have 400k to offer hardaker and keep them both.

 

However in principle you are right because then what do Leeds do with Hall? Or if Singleton carries on his development? Or Ward does? or Lilley reaches his potential?

 

So we could scrap the cap for youth developed players, but that would just entrench the status quo. Why is Kallum Watkins going to sign for Salford as a 16 year old when he could sign for Leeds or Wigan, get the wages AND be in for titles straight away?

 

We could scrap the cap entirely, again, as you say a lopsided competition may ensue. A Wigan 2. Now I don't think we will ever stop having a lopsided comp They game lends itself to a team dominating some games and seeing big scores. We would like less but I don't think the SC is achieving that very well.

 

So what is the answer,

 

as I say, squad limits.

 

25 players over 25k this means one team cant horde all the talent. They only have 25 full time pros and then you are dipping into youth players. Its a squad game these days and pretty much every side will use more than 25 players a season, so you still need good depth from your youngsters.

 

No more than 5 overseas players. Pretty self explanatory. Salford cant go out and sign the NSW side as people seem to be worried about if they can only get 5 overseas players.

 

no more than 10 players in your squad who have played SL for another side in the last 3 years (U21's are exempt) means you can't go out and buy all the SL talent. But you can get some.

 

no fewer than 7 players in the matchday 17 that either made their SL debut for that side or are U21 exempt. Increases the emphasis on players developed by the club.

 

 

You would laugh if they asked for that.

 

You would laugh if they are on anything like the numbers you mention.

One is a liability to his Club and the other is a Myth waiting to happen.

[thundergaz]

Say Watkins is on 200k a year now and wants 500k, Hardaker is on 200k and wants 400k.

Leeds offer Watkins a marquee contract of £500k, meaning that his 200k comes off the cap and they now have 400k to offer hardaker and keep them both.

However in principle you are right because then what do Leeds do with Hall? Or if Singleton carries on his development? Or Ward does? or Lilley reaches his potential?

So we could scrap the cap for youth developed players, but that would just entrench the status quo. Why is Kallum Watkins going to sign for Salford as a 16 year old when he could sign for Leeds or Wigan, get the wages AND be in for titles straight away?

We could scrap the cap entirely, again, as you say a lopsided competition may ensue. A Wigan 2. Now I don't think we will ever stop having a lopsided comp They game lends itself to a team dominating some games and seeing big scores. We would like less but I don't think the SC is achieving that very well.

So what is the answer,

as I say, squad limits.

25 players over 25k this means one team cant horde all the talent. They only have 25 full time pros and then you are dipping into youth players. Its a squad game these days and pretty much every side will use more than 25 players a season, so you still need good depth from your youngsters.

No more than 5 overseas players. Pretty self explanatory. Salford cant go out and sign the NSW side as people seem to be worried about if they can only get 5 overseas players.

no more than 10 players in your squad who have played SL for another side in the last 3 years (U21's are exempt) means you can't go out and buy all the SL talent. But you can get some.

no fewer than 7 players in the matchday 17 that either made their SL debut for that side or are U21 exempt. Increases the emphasis on players developed by the club.

I like the concept. But can you honestly see someone like mr koukash settling for that? A guy who apparently as money coming out of his ears settling for not being able to throw money at everything and everyone he wants? This is one of the reasons this marquee system had been brought up so I doubt it will stop their. People like mr koukash don't just throw money away they want success for it and if say Salford Leeds Wigan etc are still not getting success through this system they will want more and more so where do we draw the line?

[scotchy]

Which one of those highlighted are top players?

Pretty much bog standard or worse, how Luke Burgess has won a contract at Manly is a mystery.

That was kind of my point. My club hasn't really suffered as our rivals have in our best leaving.

 

Bar Burgess however, all three of Mathers, Smith, and Walker left as very very promising youngsters and came back shot.

 

Smith for instance left as an incumbent England international, harry sunderland winner, and had just won 3 GFs at 3 different positions. He came back a fraction of the player that left.

[scotchy]

You would laugh if they asked for that.

I probably would, I was using hypotheticals. Though I have noticed these hypotheticals all seem massive

[scotchy]

I like the concept. But can you honestly see someone like mr koukash settling for that? A guy who apparently as money coming out of his ears settling for not being able to throw money at everything and everyone he wants? This is one of the reasons this marquee system had been brought up so I doubt it will stop their. People like mr koukash don't just throw money away they want success for it and if say Salford Leeds Wigan etc are still not getting success through this system they will want more and more so where do we draw the line?

I think he could build a competitive squad through that system.

 

I don't think Koukash is the person people think, I don't think he is expecting a GF this year, or even a CC. I think he expects to be competitive, I think he expects to be comfortably in the 8, outside chance of the 4, maybe a CC run. I think he is rightly frustrated that hurdles are put in Salfords way for the benefit of other clubs.

[Allora]

That was kind of my point. My club hasn't really suffered as our rivals have in our best leaving.

 

Bar Burgess however, all three of Mathers, Smith, and Walker left as very very promising youngsters and came back shot.

 

Smith for instance left as an incumbent England international, harry sunderland winner, and had just won 3 GFs at 3 different positions. He came back a fraction of the player that left.

 

Why did he come back shot?

Lack of game time or standing around doing nothing?  he backed himself and it did not work out, it says more about him than anything else to be honest.

[thundergaz]

I think he could build a competitive squad through that system.

I don't think Koukash is the person people think, I don't think he is expecting a GF this year, or even a CC. I think he expects to be competitive, I think he expects to be comfortably in the 8, outside chance of the 4, maybe a CC run. I think he is rightly frustrated that hurdles are put in Salfords way for the benefit of other clubs.

The only problem I have with this new system is SL at the moment is currently 2 maybe 3 leagues in one. So introducing this surely will make the gaps bigger hence big scorelines between say leeds and Cas etc. I understand a big name might draw crowds etc but its not the crowds at Leeds Wigan wire saints ect we need building upon ( although that wouldn't be a bad thing of course) its the wakeys Widnes Cas etc crowds that need to grow but when Leeds Wigan etc are putting 50 past them their crowds will definately dwindle not increase so like I say its an hard call to make as is it for the good of the game really? The same goes for the championship it used to be very competetive now its not with the changes.

[Spidey]

I think he is rightly frustrated that hurdles are put in Salfords way for the benefit of other clubs.

 

What hurdles are in front of Salford that are not in front of every club in the league?

[sweaty craiq]

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?

 

This mentality is why our game misses opportunities, regarding Beaumont he has a business that generates him a few million profit every year of which he has been happy to give some to the club the details of which I am not party to. I was talking to the chairman at a recent game who told me income had gone through the roof, far above forecasts and an example was ST sales were almost double what had been budgeted for which was 50% increase on previous year ie they had trebled! Shirt had doubled to about £100k cash  - this is how you fund ambition with the back stop being equity purchase.

[Rob]

Say Watkins is on 200k a year now and wants 500k, Hardaker is on 200k and wants 400k.

 

Leeds offer Watkins a marquee contract of £500k, meaning that his 200k comes off the cap and they now have 400k to offer hardaker and keep them both.

 

However in principle you are right because then what do Leeds do with Hall? Or if Singleton carries on his development? Or Ward does? or Lilley reaches his potential?

 

So we could scrap the cap for youth developed players, but that would just entrench the status quo. Why is Kallum Watkins going to sign for Salford as a 16 year old when he could sign for Leeds or Wigan, get the wages AND be in for titles straight away?

 

We could scrap the cap entirely, again, as you say a lopsided competition may ensue. A Wigan 2. Now I don't think we will ever stop having a lopsided comp They game lends itself to a team dominating some games and seeing big scores. We would like less but I don't think the SC is achieving that very well.

 

So what is the answer,

 

as I say, squad limits.

 

25 players over 25k this means one team cant horde all the talent. They only have 25 full time pros and then you are dipping into youth players. Its a squad game these days and pretty much every side will use more than 25 players a season, so you still need good depth from your youngsters.

 

No more than 5 overseas players. Pretty self explanatory. Salford cant go out and sign the NSW side as people seem to be worried about if they can only get 5 overseas players.

 

no more than 10 players in your squad who have played SL for another side in the last 3 years (U21's are exempt) means you can't go out and buy all the SL talent. But you can get some.

 

no fewer than 7 players in the matchday 17 that either made their SL debut for that side or are U21 exempt. Increases the emphasis on players developed by the club.

 

I like the concept.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the values of the players though...

 

but with the restrictions you suggest:

 

a) limit general spending on wages

 

still allow clubs to compete the the world's elite players

 

c) still encourage clubs to simultaneously focus on development of their own

[Rob]

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.

 

I don't agree Parky.

 

Good skilled, inspirational leadership (in any form of life) making smart decisions costs nothing.

 

There are many examples in business where David enters the marketplace and grows to challenge Goliath, the incumbent in the market place who has the money.

 

Sure, a few million to invest at the start can speed things up.  But even this is no guarantee of immediate success.  Just look at Salford.

 

The right leader, recruiting and motivating the right team could turn a club around without pouring money in.

 

Am I right in saying that Marc Green at Bradford is not pouring money into the club?  All the press releases from the club I see are about new money coming in from yet another commercial partnership / sponsorship deal the club has struck, and are not generally about his personal investment.

[The Parksider]

I don't agree Parky.

 

Good skilled, inspirational leadership (in any form of life) making smart decisions costs nothing.

 

There are many examples in business where David enters the marketplace and grows to challenge Goliath, the incumbent in the market place who has the money.

 

Whoa - don't take an example outside northern Rugby League to prove your point.

 

Give me an example IN the "market place" of Rugby league.

 

I'll give you 1973 to date to set out where a northern RL club "entered the marketplace and grew to challenge goliath???"

 

Your words, your chance to back them with an RL example.....................

[The Parksider]

This mentality is why our game misses opportunities, regarding Beaumont he has a business that generates him a few million profit every year of which he has been happy to give some to the club the details of which I am not party to. I was talking to the chairman at a recent game who told me income had gone through the roof, far above forecasts and an example was ST sales were almost double what had been budgeted for which was 50% increase on previous year ie they had trebled! Shirt had doubled to about £100k cash  - this is how you fund ambition with the back stop being equity purchase.

 

Your words 

 

Beaumont he has a business that generates him a few million profit every year of which he has been happy to give some to the club

 

Your admission. Any business can "grow" by being gifted large wedges of free money.

[Krytensmate]

I'd say it's time we all just packed in and watched the footy

[The Parksider]

I'd say it's time we all just packed in..................

 

................playing fantasy Rugby league in our heads and started to get real.

[Krytensmate]

................playing fantasy Rugby league in our heads and started to get real.

With that post alone it explains so much

[Rob]

Whoa - don't take an example outside northern Rugby League to prove your point.

 

Give me an example IN the "market place" of Rugby league.

 

I'll give you 1973 to date to set out where a northern RL club "entered the marketplace and grew to challenge goliath???"

 

Your words, your chance to back them with an RL example.....................

 

Parky.  You're great at arguing a point.  But your point is not always correct!

 

Your original statement was:

 

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

 

You now want me to argue against (or words to this effect):

 

"No small northern town clubs have "raised their game" without money from a rich chairman since 1973".

 

Which is now a totally different statement, narrowed down to your benefit with the sole purpose of winning an argument.  It's like my wife when she changes the topic!

 

I'll attack your original statement.  It's like saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks.  Its absolute male genitals.  It's just a saying which is meaningless.

 

What I am saying is that there is no fundamental reason why RL clubs (small, northern, post 1973 or otherwise) cannot raise their game in many different ways - not all necessarily requiring input from a rich chairman.

 

Further to my point, there is no fundamental reason why a RL club cannot borrow inspiration from other areas of business and enter the marketplace and become successful and take on the established players.  Remember, some RL clubs are actually profitable.  i.e. a RL club does not necessarily need ongoing financial support for it to remain successful.  Like I said originally, money from a backer is handy / speeds things up, but its not the only way a club can "raise its game".

 

Just because it hasn't happened in your post-1973, narrow geographical range of clubs doesn't mean it can't happen.

[The Parksider]

Parky.  You're great at arguing a point.  But your point is not always correct!

 

Your original statement was:

 

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

 

Just because it hasn't happened in your post-1973, narrow geographical range of clubs doesn't mean it can't happen.

 

Rob,

 

By your own admission it has not happened in the last 42 years. If it can happen set me out the business plan by which it could happen??

 

It's too easy as you see and as you and others do to paint me as a "pessimist" or to make an argument that just because it hasn't happened despite clubs striving for it for at least 42 years of living memory (if not 150 years for some) does not mean it can't happen..

 

Sport is dreams and there's nowt wrong with that, but it's also business and we suffer as a business through a dearth of paying customers and qualified employees.

 

Dreams are OK at night - we can dream of Greg Inglis signing for Leeds for best part of £1M and sponsors falling over him to give him £Hundreds of thousands more, everyone wearing an Inglis shirt around the city and crowds flocking wherever he plays.

 

But dreams ignore reality that the game lacks interest and resource and in the north too many clubs fight each other for both, kids and adults are far far more interested in playing and watching soccer and our own version of "Rugby" is under direct pressure from a richer Union with a greater infrastructure.

 

The conditions for significant growth do not exist, even the other year the World Cup was hailed as the magic catalyst to get everyone playing and watching. It didn't, and your in danger of swallowing this hype that keeps coming round. Nowt wrong with that, we need to talk the game up.

 

But in the real world and this is the same for all businesses you have to get on with it and the target has to be make the best of what you have. My opinion is the RFL are not doing that and self interested clubs aren't allowing that either. If you can't grow your business into a monster you don't give up which is another silly comment above, you make the best of it, you stand proud of that and you enjoy it with the employees and customers you have.

 

I'm a "misery" because we do not do that. We set up silly gimmicks like this new structure which already bombed last year with relegation jeopardy, we talk about even sillier gimmicks like taking on RU & NRL - have you seen their salary cap allowances and marquee systems??

 

Both these things are utter garbage from businessmen who know better but don't want to know anything but self interest - their own club.

 

Three  leagues, highest affordable salary caps we can for each league, one up and one down, top four play offs, strong junior development policy, develop France and settle down to that by working hard to do all the little things we can achieve right, and to maximise what we can get from the game and grow every small ounce of potential we can find

 

Doing our best with our business would be far more satisfying for me than dreaming about it. Do you not agree?? I hope you do but there'll be a few falling over themselves not to!