Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:05 pm  

All this would do - in my eyes - would be to drive wage inflation and lead to clubs over-paying a select group of players.

A club of our stature would not be able to recruit a genuine marquee player for the NRL any more. We are unable to afford it even if we could. It only accentuates the gap between the have and have nots; I understand what Koukash is trying to do, but he has to understand the Salary Cap is there for a reason and it is meant to keep a league stable and competetive.

I think it's a bad idea and I'm glad we vetoed it.

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:40 pm  

Agree completely with Pingwing on this issue.

On a side issue, what has become of the overseas quota and trying to bring British talent through? (I noted from last week's programme that 10 of Salfords first 17, were born in NZ or Aus. That's a bit disappointing from a club that's been in existence for 100 years, imo).

We should find better ways of rewarding clubs that are making genuine efforts with their youth system (maybe sal cap exemptions for up and coming British stars?) Or do they do that already?

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:44 pm  

I'd suggest a salary cap that only applies to non-Club Trained players.

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:07 pm  

Snoopy wrote:

Koukash will do anything he can to exploit his position as a rich man to make 'his' Salford one of the top teams in SL. Marquee signings suit him because he knows only a few clubs can do this including Salford with his money. Same with getting rid of the SC. or just increasing it. He knows the weaker financial clubs like ourselves, Cas, Wakey, HKR and Widnes can't compete without risking getting into financial trouble e.g. Bradford. Everyone should understands his motives and if the rest of SL give in then SL in this country is going to be an even more elitist Leauge than it is now.

Are you suggesting better off clubs should be brought down to London and Wakefield's financial level?

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:52 pm  

I'm saddened by this. I think the sport really needs a shot in the arm and Koukash wants to do that. Why hold the whole sport back because of the sorry basket cases such as the Broncos.
If the Premier League back in 1992 had decided to peg itself to it's weakest members - say Oldham,Luton,Wimbledon - then it would never have had it's boom, it would never have got all the new owners, it would never have been able to sign all the world class players and indeed, anyone half decent would have left elsewhere. That's an extreme example obviously - football's a much bigger sport & the end result of the boom is probably the death of the England football team and has priced many out of the game BUT I think letting the top RL clubs spend can bring a boom to the game, can increase attendances, increase news coverage and bring in more owners who want to flash the cash and put even more money into RL.
One thing working in Koukash's favour is that two of the naysayers are out at the end of this year. So then it's 5 against 7. If he can tweak his proposal and sway a couple of teams then he'll get his wish.
You get far more bang for your buck in RL than football, at the moment there's nothing in it for these people to buy the Broncos. Even if they did want to spend up to the cap due to the north-south price divide the Broncos are permanently hamstrung. Let them know they can spend whatever is required and you never know, the future might be bright for the Broncos. And hey, what's the worse that could happen - the club to implode and go out of business? No difference from the current shambles.

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:59 pm  

This is really OT for this board, but I got the impression that the proposal was rejected because some felt that it hadn't been properly thought through. It could still be accepted in a revised form at some time.

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:10 pm  

Euclid wrote:

Are you suggesting better off clubs should be brought down to London and Wakefield's financial level?

Im in agreement with Penguin. We must keep SL competitive and avoid people spending more than they can afford. Salford on their own cannot spend money like he is suggesting without the Doc dipping into his pocket even more. If the game had been expanded like Lindsay's original plan intended then we would have had SL clubs in other cities throughout the UK including 2 in London maybe 1 each in Leeds Bradford Hull Liverool Manchester Birmingham Nottingam, Leicester Newcastle Derby Sheffield Bristol. This IMO should have been the aim if what we wanted was to make our sport to grow. Big clubs in big cities with big crowds attracting media attention and similar sponsorship deals and TV rights. Then you can have your marquee player and a bigger SC as they should all be on a level playing field apart from those not managing properly.

Of course it cannot happen because the small northern clubs will never embrace expansion if its at their clubs expence even if they have another club 5 miles down the road to watch.

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:40 pm  

BroncOnIon wrote:

This is really OT for this board, but I got the impression that the proposal was rejected because some felt that it hadn't been properly thought through. It could still be accepted in a revised form at some time.

And the new Sky deal was thought through in 24 hours. Sometimes Rugby league deserves itself!

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:05 pm  

Problem is, Snoopy, the cap hasn't prevented London, Bradford, Widnes and others from getting in trouble. There may be an answer, but I don't think it's the cap.

Re: Marquee Signing Rule Rejected by RFL : Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:51 pm  

Euclid wrote:

Problem is, Snoopy, the cap hasn't prevented London, Bradford, Widnes and others from getting in trouble. There may be an answer, but I don't think it's the cap.

The cap only refers to players payments. There are other costs as you know such as club and stadium admin, development of academy players, stadium maintenance costs etc. all these have to be paid by the clubs as well. This is why expansion to the big cities is important as a sucessful club (or at least competitive one) will have above your small town attendances to cover these costs. Look at the crowds of Huddersfield - a succesfull club in a small town only getting 5,000 gates. If we had developed a club in Nottingham which was as succesfull you would surely expect that if the game established itself as any expansion club there as it needs to do, they would surely have 10,000+ gates.

At the end of the day some 'bigger' clubs will still get themselves into trouble due to financial mismanagement or errors of judgement in hiring coaches/players etc. which affects performance on the pitch which affects attendaces and therefore the income it generates. you are never going to get perfection when human beings are in control.