Anyone have a high quality version of his embrace of Charnley during the recent Challenge Cup Final?

Meanwhile this apparently is going to be the face to represent RL in the UKhttps://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02025/sam-tomkins_2025120a.jpg" >

and people still claim the RFL are clueless when it comes to marketing the game.

Plenty of bad lads from the inner city (well, town) playing it around here.

Any move to keep our stars in SL should be given a chance. Tomkins is without doubt a huge talent and therefore hot property. If this new rule allowed us to sign Sonny Bill what would you say then?

I think we need to understand how this "exemption" works a bit more.

As it stands now, all it seems to do is allow a club to pay one player or a category of players more money.

Is every SL club now faced with a handful of players demanding to be the "exception player" and get their salary doubled?

This.

As Richie says more details are required before working through the positives and any negatives (including unintended ones.)

__________

If it transpires the RFL are paying some or all of this contract perhaps they should be placing Tomkins in the re-branded London Broncos side where his presence may actual make a difference to the profile of the sport amongst the southern based/biased media?

Do you really think sam tomkins 300k is coming off a 1.7m cap?

The cap has been altered...... we dont know to what extent yet.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was totally exempt from the cap now.... best case 50%

Wasn't that Harold's lad?

My concern regarding this almost immediate relaxation in the SC rules since Joels defection and Sam's new pay rise as a result, is how it will be policed and how relaxed the rulings will be

Where do we draw the line before salary cap is broken by any SL side?

Given the desire of our game to produce higher quality younger players, wouldn't it make more sense to give each club an "X players under 23(?) years of age are exempt from the SC", thus meaning clubs can benefit from investing in young talent without it hitting their cap allowance, but with the number low enough to stop any club from stockpiling the best young talent? I say 23 as this is the age at which clubs can get compensation for younger players leaving I think????

Anything relating to only one player per club will inevitably lead to disharmony within the club.

I think the RFL need to get some clear information out regarding this new rule, as it is it's turning into the usual RFL comedy show, changing rules to suit and keeping everyone like mushrooms

I think you're right....make an age when players become live on the cap....

you can then develop your players off cap in the first team.... works nicely.

So long as union is raiding our ranks, we have to give clubs the ability to at least have a chance of keeping star players. I doubt the RFL have fully thought the whole thing through, but TBH if it keeps the likes of Tomkins in the game I'm not bothered whether the rules have been bent in Wigan's favour.

The reality is the competition is already hugely unbalanced because whilst a couple of clubs spend at/near the cap, a lot don't spend anywhere near it - because they can't. At present the main aim of the cap ought to be to enforce solvency (if possible).

I think the best alteration to the cap would be to make players who are developed through a clubs academy only count 50% on the cap. Its a simple rule, and would allow a top player to be paid close to what they could get elsewhere. It would also promote clubs developing their own talent as you could get much more bang for your buck.

I doubt this salary cap flex thing is designed to favour Wigan, but it is certainly going to benefit them most in the short term.

Having said that, they have suffered the poaching from Union worse than others, with Robinson, Farrell, Ashton and now Tomkins all going that way.

The RFL have to be seen to do something about it, otherwise we'll become a sport which feeds the RFU with their backs