Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:06 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

The insinuation that 6 teams can't see past their own capabilities, and can only vote for what's best for them, as opposed to what they think is best for the sport (as Saints, Huddersfield and hull fc did at least) just because their conclusion doesn't match his, is pretty derogatory.

It's basically saying, I'm right, and you'd agree if you were better - which is derision.

I struggle with how the doc presents himself, and how he constructs arguments. He doesn't leave room for the consideration he's wrong, which, if you can be swayed to his way of thinking, comes across as empassioned and bold, if you disagree with his particular argument, he's like nails on a chalkboard.

Yet no complaint at the way McManus denigrates the clubs who did vote for it? Including some pretty successful ones with arguably better youth development than Saints?

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:17 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

If he just stuck to Salford I think I'd find him a lot more likable.

I think this is what a lot of it comes down to with Koukash. Sadly people would rather anyone new to the sport merely go along with the status quo and leave the proposing of any changes to the usual suspects.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:27 am  

Talent Spotter wrote:

I think this is what a lot of it comes down to with Koukash. Sadly people would rather anyone new to the sport merely go along with the status quo and leave the proposing of any changes to the usual suspects.

Disagree, it's not necessarily that he's trying to change things, I think he's trying to change the wrong things, and given his personality - and that's what I have trouble with.

Smokey - I don't think it was necessarily right to bring in comparisons to the kaiser - but those "more successful" (that's open to debate) academies also voted away the reserves (a decision which I actually understand, but it was an admission of giving up imo as opposed to forcing clubs to build) - he also never says anything expressly wrong - and he doesn't rule out the total possibility that koukash (or anyone else who voted for the system) are not in the interest of the sport, rather the understanding that now is not the time to bring this rule in.

Of course, I'm naturally going to line up behind McManus, with all he's done for my club means he can do no wrong in my mind. And I imagine it's the same for everyone. Ultimately, I think both koukash and McManus need to shut up about it, and let the rugby do the talking (my fear is neither will)

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:48 am  

The issue is that whilst those clubs may have voted to remove the U21's it may not have been because THEY couldnt afford it, nor necessarily entirely because of finances at all.

Its all very well McManus deciding from upon high that we don't need them, we can't afford them and they will sink the very nations which purchased them and then to compare it to the dreadnought race. Thats not his decision to make. What worries me is the fact that the Saints Chairman thinks he is the position to decide for everyone what the game can and cannot afford. It strikes very much of a man who has decided what would be best for his club and extrapolated it to every club, and is quite dismissive of any alternative view point.

Its also disappointing to see him hide behind the developed player exemptions which protect his club and enshrine their position at the top.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:06 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

What worries me is the fact that the Saints Chairman thinks he is the position to decide for everyone what the game can and cannot afford. It strikes very much of a man who has decided what would be best for his club and extrapolated it to every club, and is quite dismissive of any alternative view point.

And how is this different from what Koukash is doing, exactly?

SmokeyTA wrote:

Its also understandable to see him hide behind the developed player exemptions which reward his club and enshrine their position at the top.

FTFY.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:13 am  

Charlie Sierra wrote:

And how is this different from what Koukash is doing, exactly?

Koucash has never stated he would demand everyone spend on the marquee player. He has at no stage decided that everyone has to spend what he wants. Simply that they are allowed to.

If McManus can't afford a marquee player. Dont buy one. Just don't demand that nobody is allowed to.

FTFY.

No you didnt. The rewards of youth development are the reward in and of itself. What McManus proposes doesnt reward those clubs for investing in youth development, it protects their position at the top and makes it a lot harder for those below to challenge.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:26 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Koucash has never stated he would demand everyone spend on the marquee player. He has at no stage decided that everyone has to spend what he wants. Simply that they are allowed to.

If McManus can't afford a marquee player. Dont buy one. Just don't demand that nobody is allowed to.


No you didnt. The rewards of youth development are the reward in and of itself. What McManus proposes doesnt reward those clubs for investing in youth development, it protects their position at the top and makes it a lot harder for those below to challenge.

So he's also demanding no other club can invest in youth? Setting up and running a reserves team reportedly costs 30k - how can it be a lot harder for the bottom teams to spend that money on youth, but easier for them to spend 100k on a "marquee" (who, for lower teams at least would be "run-of-the-mill-Aussie on inflated wages) - to suggest that teams shouldn't be rewarded for actually increasing and improving our ever shrinking pool for international selection is silly. Given there are teams with better youth development according to you, surely it's a disadvantage for us to not want the marquee rule, as we would otherwise be unable to compete with teams who do have better youth?

You seem set on the idea that McManus has been plotting in his lair for years trying to think of ways to stop teams spending. If 4 teams have gone bust just on the basic salary cap we have now, what's it going to be like with an extra 300k? (And don't give me they don't have to spend it, they will, because one team will get one and then the fans from other clubs will ask why not us, and then clubs who sort of can afford it but not really will get one, and then clubs who can't afford it will get one, and that's when the trouble begins) - it's at least a more accurate observation than "all the clubs that didn't vote for my idea don't spend up to the cap"

No koukash just demanded the right to buy them off so he could.

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:46 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

So he's also demanding no other club can invest in youth? Setting up and running a reserves team reportedly costs 30k - how can it be a lot harder for the bottom teams to spend that money on youth, but easier for them to spend 100k on a "marquee" (who, for lower teams at least would be "run-of-the-mill-Aussie on inflated wages) - to suggest that teams shouldn't be rewarded for actually increasing and improving our ever shrinking pool for international selection is silly. Given there are teams with better youth development according to you, surely it's a disadvantage for us to not want the marquee rule, as we would otherwise be unable to compete with teams who do have better youth?

You seem set on the idea that McManus has been plotting in his lair for years trying to think of ways to stop teams spending. If 4 teams have gone bust just on the basic salary cap we have now, what's it going to be like with an extra 300k? (And don't give me they don't have to spend it, they will, because one team will get one and then the fans from other clubs will ask why not us, and then clubs who sort of can afford it but not really will get one, and then clubs who can't afford it will get one, and that's when the trouble begins) - it's at least a more accurate observation than "all the clubs that didn't vote for my idea don't spend up to the cap"

No koukash just demanded the right to buy them off so he could.

No, he isn’t stopping anyone from investing in youth. It is however much much easier for Saints to rely on youth than Salford. Even if Koucash came in and spent millions on youth development, it will still be 10 years or so before they could catch up to the likes of Saints, Leeds, Wigan.

Its all very well saying Koucash should do what Saints did, but James Roby is 28, he is a fully formed, fully fledged elite player. He has been at Saints for 12 years. If Koucash set out today to go find the next James Roby, he isn’t getting that ‘pay-off’ that saints get until around 2020.

It basically says to Koucash or anyone who is trying to take over one of our struggling clubs, yeah sure you can come in to RL but you need to accept you will be poop for a few years and be on the wrong end of inherent advantages for some clubs. You will have to accept that for the best part of a decade Saints and other will be able to spend more than you on players because Eamon McManus and the smaller clubs have decided that’s how much you should be able to spend.

If McManus really thinks the game cannot afford marquee players or spending more on wages, I look forward to him not taking advantage of the new rules limiting the cap cost of developed players to increase his total salary spend and bring new better players in. After all we don't need them, we can't afford them and they will sink the very nations which purchased them

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:57 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No, he isn’t stopping anyone from investing in youth. It is however much much easier for Saints to rely on youth than Salford. Even if Koucash came in and spent millions on youth development, it will still be 10 years or so before they could catch up to the likes of Saints, Leeds, Wigan.

Its all very well saying Koucash should do what Saints did, but James Roby is 28, he is a fully formed, fully fledged elite player. He has been at Saints for 12 years. If Koucash set out today to go find the next James Roby, he isn’t getting that ‘pay-off’ that saints get until around 2020.

It basically says to Koucash or anyone who is trying to take over one of our struggling clubs, yeah sure you can come in to RL but you need to accept you will be poop for a few years and be on the wrong end of inherent advantages for some clubs. You will have to accept that for the best part of a decade Saints and other will be able to spend more than you on players because Eamon McManus and the smaller clubs have decided that’s how much you should be able to spend.

If McManus really thinks the game cannot afford marquee players or spending more on wages, I look forward to him not taking advantage of the new rules limiting the cap cost of developed players to increase his total salary spend and bring new better players in. After all we don't need them, we can't afford them and they will sink the very nations which purchased them

To take advantage of the new rules, it would take 3 years, he could buy in the very best 18 year olds from saints Wigan and Leeds, play them in the academy for a few years, and then build them into the team, whilst bringing in players under the cap like everyone else - meanwhile he can bring in the likes of Stefan ratchford. But he won't, because that doesn't being him the headlines that trying to sign billy slater would.

As for McManus not taking advantage of the rule, I think you'll find most saints fans are very pessimistic about the chances of graham returning home this year. It's a case of can but won't from the saints side, and graham still has a point to prove out in aus imo. - even if he does - saints are still in the top 5 richest teams in the comp, just cos we can afford it doesn't mean others can

Re: The mad doctor : Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:04 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

To take advantage of the new rules, it would take 3 years, he could buy in the very best 18 year olds from saints Wigan and Leeds, play them in the academy for a few years, and then build them into the team, whilst bringing in players under the cap like everyone else - meanwhile he can bring in the likes of Stefan ratchford. But he won't, because that doesn't being him the headlines that trying to sign billy slater would.

As for McManus not taking advantage of the rule, I think you'll find most saints fans are very pessimistic about the chances of graham returning home this year. It's a case of can but won't from the saints side, and graham still has a point to prove out in aus imo. - even if he does - saints are still in the top 5 richest teams in the comp, just cos we can afford it doesn't mean others can

I didnt mention Graham. I said im looking forward to saints not increasing their spending on the back of the youth developed rules.

Thats the most contradictory thing about McManus' standpoint, if clubs can't afford it, they can't afford it. The fact they have some youth developed players doesnt alter that does it.

Besides, if rumours regarding Bradford are true, it seems Koucash may have 6 of the 7 votes he would need and Mr McManus might find himself on the wrong side of this argument.