Quote ="Rogues Gallery"A bit more here. www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/1 ... um=twitter'" So what does that mean?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"A bit more here. www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/1 ... um=twitter'" So what does that mean?

I can't figure it out whether its 100k per player, or up to a total of 100k in total.

If you've produced a player who is current in the knights or England squad, you get a certain figure extra on the cap, if that player also plays for you, that figure is doubled. If said player plays for another side, they get the same amount.

It means what it says on the tin so far as I can see. Clubs who develop players who end up in the ETS or Knights squad get allowances: two per player. If the player was developed by AND plays for a club both allowances go to the one club; if the player was developed in one club but plays for another when in the ETS/Knights then they get one allowance and the current team get the other. So, Wakey won't get any allowances at all so far as I know because I don't think they have developed anyone towards either team and nor did they have any players in 2011 who were in either team but developed elsewhere. The maximum allowances can reach is £100,000 above the salary cap. I don't know how the finances work in practical terms because the RFL has not disclosed that bit (surprise, surprise) but if the allowances are on a sliding scale, as apparently they are, one would assume that those in the Knights attract a lower allowance than those in the ETS.

No I couldn't figure that one out either. I wonder if that's been kept deliberately vague in order to allow the big spenders of Leeds, Warrington and Wigan freedom to crash the salary cap?

Yup, thats obviously it.

Why are people finding this so difficult?

'Clubs....will be given dispensation to spend up to £100,000 more than the £1.65m salary cap limit'

£100K max in total. In line with the way other maximum exemption thresholds are given under the regulations.

There'll be monetary examples included when the updated Operational Rules are published. (A general press release isn't the place for them).

Then why not raise the cap £100,000?

It may have been one of several options proposed.

There isn't that much widespread support for such a simplistic approach though is there?

This way, Clubs are incentivised to invest in player development. There's also a clear link to improving the national team.

Once you argue that these are activities that should be encouraged, it makes sense to outline criteria that must be met to be entitled to claim the exemption.

If the RFL want to put the focus on youth then why not have a percentage of any home grown players wage not count to the cap.

For example, home grown players salary only count at 60% on the cap.

That way all teams would focus on youth, teams would be able to keep the eastmonds, tomkins, Grahams etc.

It would be less complicated than the current format being talked about.

Wakey would get half an allowance for Gareth Ellis, I should think.

To be honest, there are all manner of potential schemes that have merit. You seem to ultimately agree with the ends, though not the means, so it's just a moot point.

My guess (and it is only a guess) would be that an approach such as you suggest has been discussed. The fact is that after whatever discussions have taken place, it is the approach with the link to the England ETS and Knights that has been agreed.

The arguments for this approach were obviously compelling enough to reach a strong enough consensus to ratify the amendment.

Personally, I don't have a format that I would particularly favour.

At least the RFL are trying to keep English players in super league and that's a good thing. I think we can all agree with that.

But they aren't Pete. Do you really think these allowances will actually be spent on English players? This whole situation came about because Wigan needed a centre and couldn't get one because they didn't have enough on the cap to get a quality player. So they moaned about the cap and got these dispensations passed with no thought put into the decision. The day after Leneghan boasts about now being in a position to sign a £100k+ a year NRL centre.

Clubs will earn these allowances (And the selections of the elite players will be completely spurious and designed to help certain clubs, such as Joel Tomkins being named in this years list) but there is nothing stopping them spending the money on NRL players. You earn the max cap exemption of £100k for having two English players in the list, according to what I've read in the statement. 2? It's pathetic. It's not like clubs can even afford the increases. We can't as a prime example and I'd be disappointed if we used them as all it would do is add to the financial losses we make.

I'm not going to bag the RFL yet until I see what they put in place and I totally understand it.

I still think home grown players salary should only count as 50/60% on the cap. That would encourage teams to invest in youth, we would keep our best young players in super league.

I also think it would free up cap space to bring quality nrl players to super league instead of over hill Aussies looking for a pay day.

I'd also go down the Aussie route abd say we will only pick players from super league for England.

What have you heard?

Whatever justifications are given, whatever excuses are made, whatever benefits to the game are alleged, this is a move by the RL 100% purely and simply to cave in to Wigan's demands to be allowed to bring in an antipodean centre next season instead of being forced to promote some of their homegrown talent there instead, completely in opposition to the supposed reason for it happening. It will ultimately benefit only the 3 or 4 richest and most successful clubs in the game (who, by very definition, are the richest and most successful clubs and so need no extra benefit at all), making an utter mockery of the whole concept of having a salary cap in the first place. It will force every other club who cannot afford the salary cap as it stands already to face either bankruptcy, or eternal mediocrity and uncompetitiveness (which will ultimately lead to the same thing with ever more disinterested supporters staying at home with their cash to watch Scum Utd. on telly instead). It cannot and will not prevent the talent drain from a league that simply does not have the financial resources to be able to remotely compete with the other markets for that talent.

These are all facts. Story, end of.

Other clubs may eventually benefit too, British RL may even benefit [ivery slightly[/i in the very short term as well (although it's hard to argue that point given that it is basically just a blank cheque for clubs to be able to go and sign a slightly better class of antipodean in future, ignoring home grown talent a la Wigan's current centre situation instead), but [ithe only reason this has happened[/i is to give in to pressure to be allowed to cheat their way back to competitiveness from the biggest and noisiest club in the game. It sickens me frankly and makes me angrier and angrier the more I think about it.

The salary cap rules are a matter for the clubs not the RFL so presumably a majority voted at their meeting to push this through. Deciding it is an RFL conspiracy is wacko.

I get the angst about this deal because its Wigan, but thank god the RFL have finally allowed clubs to make a stand financially. Tomkins - like it or not - is potentially a household name, and its hugely important that RL keeps him for as long as possible. I have no problem at all with a line being drawn in the sand with respect to RU poaching. Players going to the NRL is different - they are still eligible for England. Gareth Ellis leaving Leeds for wests is a billion miles from him joining an RU side.

I wonder how the other Wigan lads feel about tomkins being paid so much?

I've got a little feeling it's not gone down well

I made a point that I wouldlike a scheme similar to this but the RFL pay the wages over and above the cap, someone then pointed out that it would be difficult because you would not know which players were in or out each year.

Wigan have paid the max already, to keep tomkins, but lets say next year tomkins is the only Wigan player in the ETS/knights, how will wigan be able to stick to the wages if there is not enough players to cover the nessasary allowances. Or will it be a case of current contracts will be honored. Ie once your team reaches the maximum players needed to earn the extra 100k, if you don't have the players in the squad the following year you will not have to offer reduced contracts.

That's the problem though isn't it, we'll never attract the top quality Australian NRL players whilst they still have an opportunity to play 'rep footy' because the aussies won't pick them, that leaves the players that are no longer playing for their country because they are too old or have 'issues'. Then we have the non Australian NRL players from the likes of New Zealand, PNG etc, then it comes down to how we can compete against the NRL clubs not just in terms of money but the level of competition and the lifestyle they can offer.

Looking at that New Zealand side that played against England and how many of them are better than the current non-aussie imports we already have?

If we want to attract the best Australian players to our league we need two or three key things to happen, 1) The ARL needs to relax their restrictions on non picking non NRL based players for the Australian National Side, 2) We need to be able to compete on a level financial playing field as the NRL, and to some extent 3) We need to prove we can offer a competitive club competition on a similar level to that of the NRL.

The problem is non of those things are going to happen anytime soon, and so we come back to needing to focus on keeping our best players in our competition OR producing a larger volume of better young players which is the real trick.

I'm all for trying to keep the likes of Sam T and our own fantastic young & older players in the game but we need to be very very careful that any amendments & new rules put into place are strictly for that purpose and are not full of loopholes to be exploited as has been suggested here.

Not really; the effect is very similar, the only difference is in respect of the international game

tony, you say "If we want to attract the best Australian players to our league....".

Thats a very big "if" for me. I'd prefer us to concentrate developing our own players as a priority.

I see the NRL as a necessary evil though, we need to grow the international game in order to get more interest in the sport as a whole, to then in turn get interest in Super League. To do that we need to start beating the Aussies + Kiwis on a regular basis.

If someone like Tomkins went to the NRL, I'd be gutted as a Wigan fan, but understand that he wants to test himself on another level to that of Super League. I could guarantee that he'd still be the poster boy for England though. And unfortunately trying to flog Super League to non-RL followers is going to be a struggle, doing it with England though is another matter, look at RU. Domestically the games still a bit of a mess, doing no better than SL, however Internationally they make so much money, get so much coverage and have so many followers.

It's all about the international game.