I'm cautiously in favour of the rule. I think it allows clubs to be competitive in signing or retaining a star player if they want to/can.

I'd favour some kind of academy product exemption, but not a significant one. In the end clubs still can't afford much of an increase in players wages despite a higher TV deal, and if they could I'd rather see some spent on improving club infrastructures.

One of the big benefits of the new rule in my opinion is that it opens the marquee players up to personal sponsorship deals that before would have been counted on the cap. So if Leeds Building Society wanted Leeds' marquee player as the face of a big marketing campaign they could pay him half a million if they wanted to. Whereas currently they can't.
So that's a big plus for me.

GH confirmed in a supporters branch meeting last night that he is very much in favour of the rule, but Leeds won't be using it to bring anyone in.

GH is smarter than us lot, and this rule hasn't just appeared from nowhere. In sure he's been looking at the permutations and combinations to make it work for us. Our club is now built on an ethos of playing for the badge and each other and I can't see that being flushed down the pan for this rule. Obviously some players are paid more, but they'll know that. And also know that they'll be rewarded if they work their off for the club. In on the side of greater exemptions for players who have come through academies

I know what Warrington offered Morgan Smith and it's a ridiculous amount. Even if you argue that he's such a big POTENTIAL talent, you shouldn't throw that kind of money at a 16 year old in any walk of life who is still a yet-to-be-proved properly talent.

Exactly and some you win some you lose... iirc Wigan fans cried over us "poaching" Scott Leatherbarrow a few years ago..... he was going to be the real deal.....so real in fact, he never got a game for the first team and is now at Batley Bulldogs....

few kids turn out to be Like Kallum Watkins and that's what this money will be used for, to ensure he doesn't go to Union.

I know what Morgan got aswell. So go on then, let's hear it, because I don't think its that big. The signing on fee might be described excessive, but if you are above so many, it seems not that high.

But you have to get down the field for a half to come into it.

Replacing JP has to be the priority. even a 2015 battle worn JP is still knocking out 30/40 tackles and 20 carries per game.

You're right, I'm not thinking that at all. Well done.

It has clearly been publicised that Leeds operate within a tiered salary structure. If Ian Kirke had attained the pre-requisite levels within that structure he would have been paid the same as Peacock. He didn't so he wasn't.

Well done for ,moving the discussion forward with silly examples that nobody other than you was using.

really? seems strange. hopefully this is a "Briscoe" statement.... seems weird to vote for increasing our opponents SC (effectively) but not planing on using it to increase our own.
not so strange i guess considering this is the greatest leeds squad ever assembled, we must be giving the other teams a head start next year then....

So you accept that players are not on the same salaries, so therefore your first argument was pretty pointless to this rule brought in?

I'd like to see us use it to bring in that Union bloke.. Sinfield or something.

Gives us a bit more cap space to potentially keep some of the better players and allows other clubs the opportunity to blow a lot of money they don't have on some old Australians.

I like Tad's idea of rewarding clubs that develop talent by cutting academy trained players contribution to the cap. Although that could lead to some kids with short sighted agents (ie. all of them) trying to leverage more money out of clubs at an earlier age by saying the cap space is available later on if the club retains the player.

Will Rangi Chase be wanting a rise now?

Does the additional £10k cap space for players in the ETS or Knights squad (up to a maximum of £100k per club, per year) go to the club that player is currently at, or the one where he would count as club-trained?

So if say Ratchford and Clark both play for England in the autumn, do Warrington get an extra £20k on their cap despite having very little to do with their development or do Salford and Cas get £10k each?

Here's what I said. I never said the players were on the same salaries.



If that is too difficult for you to understand I'm not your carer and I haven't the inclination to explain it/knit your fog.

In my humble opinion the rule is welcome in so much as it might mean that we might be able to keep the likes of Zak from been 'attracted' away by an NRL club for more money. It offers the option of keeping a Hardaker, Hall, Cuthbertson who might otherwise decide that an extra £30-40k a year elsewhere is something they have to consider for their financial future security. Who knows it might also help stop some great league players moving to yawnion.