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.

That's not what you said at all. What you said is below




I am guessing you posted before reading the rule properly.

The players that get the marquee player contacts are going to be under a different kind of pressure, every drop ball, missed tackle is going be scrutinized 10 fold. I can see some players not wanting that.

Agree with this.

But if it's here is there anything stopping us paying Hall as the marquee one year then Hardaker the next then Watkins the following year, this way you could have your 5 top players on 5 year contracts each having a year as the marquee player or maybe it's not allowed to work that way.

I don't think that's how it's going to work. We might not even know who the marquee players are. Or if say Hall, Watkins and Hardaker are all on £200k then only one of them will be assigned "marquee player" but it doesn't matter in the slightest which one.

Or if a Kiwi international, say, comes over on £250k/year and Watkins is on £200k/year it makes cap sense to call Watkins the marquee player even if he's being played less.

The only circumstance where "pressure" would come into play is if a player came in on a *huge* contract and at that Cronk/Thurston level you'd expect the sort of player who gets that kind of deal to be able to handle pressure otherwise they wouldn't be getting that sort of contract in the first place.

I certainly don't think GH voted on the rule to blow a chunk of money on one player.
He knows what he's doing.
I think he'll use the ruling to spread the salary cap more
The way I read it, if Rhinos are spending £1.8 million, and for example, 200K is going to Hall, GH can declare Hall as Marque player on 100K, and that allows the 100K difference to be shared out? Am I correct?

Cashcow on the other hand will blow 400K on one player, although lets wait and see if he was all hot air, or really does want to blow a big chunk of cash on a top player to play in the Middle 8's