Ok I don't think we are spending up to the cap, but having said that there is a massive difference which I think is 2 fold.
In the Millward era, we where spending so close to the cap we busted it a few times, and we paid money offshore and in image rights. Those loopholes are now close which would equate to 1 or 2 players wages dropping off the books.

The 2nd part is where we splash the cash

Long/Sculthorpe/Cunningham/Martyn/ then say Joynt , basically the money was spent through the spine, you would then have a very good prop, maybe 2 and the rest where club men. 2nd rowers, ok there was Joynt, but his partners, bennett, yonkers would not be on the money that say wilkin, sia, even flanaghan will be on. I think we are spending our money in slightly the wrong areas and the spine has weakened. Who takes our big bucks? I'd guess

Perry/TP/LMS/La Franki/Wellens/Roby/Wilkin/Lance, maybe shenton.

So we have spent our big bucks on a pack and 2 fullbacks. The creative spine has not been invested in to the same extent. Now the young kids have done well but 2 half backs developing together, is not like Long who came into a team with Goulding, Martyn, Hammond to help him out. Long used to run around alot but his kicking took years to develop. If we spent a little less on the pack maybe 2 very good props and the rest would be jonkers, stankovickes, bennetts, edmondsons, etc, not on major money but good money, then we could spend more on other roles.

A 3rd thought that has also come to me is the competition far fewer teams spent the cap in the past, so you could throw large chunks of cash at your stars and what you offered the rest was still competitive with the likes of the underspenders. Now if you don't pay enough, then a player like Emmit will go to Cas for more money. In the past we would not have offered more to keep Emmit but our offer would have been enough and Cas would not have been able to blow it out the water.

The young players ain't on a bad screw with their new deals. I know how much Gaskell is on and I know for a fact that lomax is on more.

Jamie foster wanted the same as Gaskell and if he got it then the young lads will take up a decent amount of the salary cap.

I think the young lads now can demand more money than years gone by due to lack of talent and the qouta being more stict than its ever been.

Maybe it's just me, but wingers and 2nd rowers would always be last on my list of priorities. You would have to be a Jason Robison type winger who can create something from nothing to warrent high consideration and for me none of our wingers get close to that billing. Joynt was another exception, but he too could create something from the 2nd row, very few players in the 2nd row have ever been of his quality.

On the subject of wingers being last on your priorities and we have four wingers which is crazy these days with the salary cap being in force.
We have more wingers than most other positions and it all eats up the cap.

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me a winger is there to finish the move. If they can be competant and have the basic rugby skills then in the world of a cap, the people creating the holes should be the cash cows.

If you can group players into groups for wages
1st tier: 6/7/13(in a ball playing role not our current another forward) and 9.
2nd tier: FB, centres, 2 props
3rd tier: the rest of the pack and wingers
4th tier: subs
5th tier: rest of squad


This would be a general rule obviously if a Jamie Lyon crops up you may push more money into that area, than say loose.

For years the Austalian attitude appeared to be "wingers are there [ito not cost you tries[/i". And it was a very successful attitude for them.

But that's only an issue if Saints are the [ione and only[/i beneficiary of the scheme. It's perfectly possible some of our rivals benefited similarly from this loophole. In which case any setbacks we felt were shared equally among them - or perhaps [imore so[/i among them.

Just seen Patrick's try against Cas, lovely try stepping off both feet and showed a lot of pace!

I'm getting worried.
I agree with you.
Mr. Teflon getting it wrong, never.

I agree with some of your comments but I also think your being a little harsh.


No way we are spending to the cap, ive said this for the past four years and I I've never bought all this we are going with youth rubbish, he's tried to do it in the cheap!

I also agree that Meli and Ade should never have got new contracts but looking at it from his view, we've only one centre at the club and if Meli had gone we would have been screwed for a centre.

He's certainly made to mistakes with the last two coaches, especially Royce who was a shocking appointment.

My biggest gripe with McManus was his constant banging on last year that we would have a team to grace the new stadium and look what he's gives us!

Most importantly tho - HE'S BRIGHT ENOUGH TO SECURE THE IS A RUGBY TEAM IN ST HELEN'S FOR THE MANY YEARS TO COME!

So not only was the coach crap but the players are crap too?

I didn't say that.

If someone (our owner) bangs on about acgrearctean to grace the stadium and then we lose jammer, pryce and eastmond and replace them with hohaia, flanaghan and laffranchci then I'm pretty disappointed to be honest.

If your not going to put together a great team to grace the stadium then he shouldnt have said it.

Laffranchi has been playing very well and Hohaia is very clearly needed. Both have played on the international stage for their respective countries and the latter is a current world cup winning medal holder, so I don't really see how much better you could get.

They ain't exactly gracing Langtree park thô ate they?

I do agree, they both doing ok and come in for some flack which IMO is wrong but when a owner comes out and days we will have scream to grace the stadium I did expect better quality than the three we brought in.

This team couldn't grace blackbrook at the moment.

We can only go off McManus' words. And they are words he has repeated over and over again. Looking at the quality of players in the squad I don't think we are spending the cap. Unless we are overpaying. Which really would be a dumb thing to do.

Again, I don't see the need to lie about the cap. Perhaps McManus is playing games something like those we see at United where in fear of lower season ticket sales Ferguson is wheeled out in the close season to say they have eighty odd million in the kitty to spend, which mysteriously never manifests itself for the start of the new season. I'm pretty sure Saints fans would have accepted four or five years of modest salaries if it secured a new ground.



I don't think he made a mistake with Potter. Let's remember, he was a very attractive prospect after Catalans performances that season. In terms of [iachievement [/ihe'd done far more than Millward.



That's just sales patter. McManus knows how to spin good PR. He has a long, long history of flashing shiny gold in the palm of his hand whilst his other is reaching into your back pocket for the wallet. The trouble is you can only get away with that trick for so long before people get wise to it. And McManus is right on the limit, IMO.



Absolutely. And he should be showered with praise, honoured with gold effigies, streets to be named after him etc. [iBut let's not think for one moment that even after all his long efforts securing Langtree Park the fans wouldn't turn on him with a long enough run of bad results.[/i I'm sure he'd be given longer than any other chairman in SL. But ultimately even McManus isn't impervious to form.