One rule for one and another when it is Big Mac hurting! he states clearly that Graham wants to live down under, so what is the point holding on to someone, better getting a transfer fee? and let him go now.

isnt that part of his point,
raising the salary cap, so clubs can keep players of this calibre.
I agree totally that the salary cap needs raising.

Yes i would, is a simple answer

if you include the extra £50k for wello, this is how is see a cap can be broken down to get real stars onboard

12 squad players on £16.5k average = £200k (youngsters)
10 squad players on £40k average = £400k
5 squad players on £80k average = £400k
3 superstars on £ 233k average = £700k

30 players there so its very easy to pay someone that much, but the reality is obviously more complicated

Does it? The average Super League club loses hundreds of thousands of pounds a year as it is, with the cap in place. There is more cause at the moment for a REDUCTION in the salary cap.

Lets not forget why the salary cap was brought in. It was brought in to prevent the 'buy the title and go bust' operations like Wigan RLFC. They built their clubs so-called glory era through spending money they never had and basically buying the titles they won. End result the club goes into bankruptcy and had Mr Whelan not needed them to get planning permission for his beloved Wigan FC's new stadium, Wigan RLFC would not exist now.

If they raise the cap again irresponsible clubs would match it, including Wigan and more worryingly probably Saints. Losing hand over fist and the answer is to spend more?

It's a daft idea. The money doesn't even go on British players on the whole, it goes to Australian players.

Agreed.

Paying over the odds to keep players who fancy living in Australia is not the answer if you can't afford to.

I am sure I know him!!!!! lol

A lot of what McManus has said is perfectly true, its just a shame more haven't/don't speak out as well. To those asking why didn't he speak up about other players, what did your own club officials say at the time?

I think we all know at some point in either 2011 or 2012 that Graham is going to go to Australia but it is highly unlikely they are going to want to part with money to sign him its not their way. Look at how the Orford situation is being handled, the Aussies don't want to pay a bean despite him having 2 years left on contract, the Bulls are trying to stand firm but agents in Aus are undermining them trying to find ways of avoiding compensation. The fact McManus says Graham should have decided by Q1 2011 - suggests its after next season anyway.

The problem stems from having a low salary cap to start £1.65m with and one that has not been raised in several years (not even cost of living type increases) and the weaker pound over the last 2 years. It is significantly lower than the NRL £3.1m, Aviva Premiership £4.1m and the ridiculous Top 14 RU in France £6.7m (all approximate conversion figures blame xe.com if dodgy)

I understand that the majority of clubs in SL could not sustain even close to spending £4 million on a playing squad but if NRL can offer almost double the average player salary & the RU can offer more than double (even with a 30 man squad) its no wonder have a player drain, we need to come up with some happy medium as we do not want our competition to become a feeder sport for RU and the NRL clubs.

What player drain is that? Ellis, Burgess and Chris Ashton?
I'd suggest that the lads like Sam, Gaz and now James are not being motivated entirley by money. That leaves you with Chris Ashton, who went the length of the field in an England Jersey against Australia infront of a packed Twikenham.

The salary cap isn't the problem. If James leaves, we'll replace him, maybe not with one equal individual, but where there's a will there's a way. Besides, the more lads who leave for Austrailia mean more places available for english youngsters in SL, increasing our player pool



If we raise the salary cap, clubs will just have more finacially problems. Lets concentrate on getting bigger crowds and better sponsership (maybe even a better deal from sky, eventually), and then talk about spending more money.

There's been plenty of stories coming out of Rugby Union about the clubs struggling financially because of the strains of maintaining a bigger squad.

OM, whilst not disagreeing with you entirely I would add Ian Thornley to that list. Ian is a 6ft 2" centre weighing in at almost 16 stone at 18 years of age. He is also very fast, something we are crying out for at International and indeed Superleague level. He had been at Wigan from being about 12 years of age.

Wigan couldn't match Sales offer under the current salary cap rules. I've always maintained that a player (particularly if it is from a clubs own service area) who has come through a clubs academy system should have a percentage of his salary not counted against the cap.
Also I am led to believe that Sale "sorted" a uni placement for Thornley.

If we use 50% as a figure then Wigan could have paid Thornley say £60K but only £30K counted against the cap.


The same rule could be applied to Roby and Graham.

Like I mentioned above, why should Wigan be allowed to spend MORE when they don't make a profit?

Yes they could - they just had to not sign one of Finch/Lima/Hoffman/Carmont (notice the theme with those signings?) or Hock (presumably, since IL has stated he has cash in reserve for him) and Wigan would have had more than enough cash to top up a young British prospect's contract, especially if he's as good as you say he is.

Same goes for Ashton - I think you went and signed Carmont then Tim Smith mid season after you couldn't "afford" to sign him on.

Because it is a business, and THEY would decide if THEY wanted to take the RISK for the future.
I also said that Saints could use the same agreement for Graham and Roby they chose to.

Sky has lost millions over the years, but it hasn't stopped their investment.

Yup, and businesses can go bust.

The salary cap is good for he game.