Hardly played, showed little commitment and you get bugger all for him...

Can I state that this rule does sod all to stop any alleged player drain.

The problem is RL has less revenue than RU.

This effective increasing of the cap does nothing what so ever to increase revenues.

All we have done is make it more pricey for a few chosen RL players to be prized away. Once again we have confused hype with the health of the game.

Does this expand viewership
does this expand the geographical nature of the game
does it increase the tv deal
does it stop fans in Wigan from leaving Rl for union or the NRL

In my opinion it does none of the above. What we have done is short term and short focused and as with all simple solutions creates a minor feel good feeling for a few influential people but does nothing to address underlying issues.

Can some one tell me how many people have actaully stopped watching SL either in person or on tv when individuals find alternate employment to RL?

A far bigger impact on crowds . sponsorship and revenue streams is the ressession. Other than the ressession viewing and attendance figures still performe well.

I'm sure lots will say something had to be done to save x y z player because they are important to the game. But I'm yetto see hard evidence of fans following players as individuals rather than clubs.

But it allows clubs with the ability to spend over the cap the room to offer extra payments to one star player, such as Tomkins so yes it does help in stopping the player drain. Generally the teams who can't spend up to the cap won't have the star players so it won't effect them too much.

Do you really think 300k will stop Union if they really want a player.The RFU have coffers deeper than any RL club and if they wanted a player they would open those coffers and get him. £1 million a year would be easy for the right player.

This rule does nothing about the real issue.

i don't know why they didn't just raise the cap by 300k and save all this myther.

Without reading through 7 pages of people complaining has this 'rule' change been communicated? I'd only have a problem if it was a 1 off for a Wigan player if the same rule applies to all teams in a fair manner I have no issue. Sam Tomkins staying in League is good for the game (even if he has a dubious attitude at time)

The timing of the rule change is a major issue for me (I'm presuming it's only just been introduced, rather than all the other SL clubs choosing not to take advantage of it until now). Off the top of my head:

Saints have lost Graham and Eastmond, both of whom are homegrown and both of whom could be considered marquee players.

Salford have lost Ratchford. Homegrown and, you could argue, was Salford's top player and therefore 'marquee'.

I'm sure the ability to chuck more money at these players to persuade them to re-sign with their respective clubs would have been welcomed. Maybe they'd have gone anyway.
Maybe not; money talks, ask Joel.

And Sam, for that matter... all this talk of loyalty, but it takes a new rule allowing him to earn record breaking amounts of cash to persuade him to stick out an extra 3 years (for which he was already contracted).

But what if there is a star player at a club that cannot afford to spend as Wigan clearly can? What happens then? Does this sop to Wigan stop such a player from being enticed to RU or the NRL? The salary cap was brought in to stop exactly what Wigan are now doing.

Wigan and Leeds. The biggest mouths in English RL. When they yell jump, the RFL asks how high and then wets its collective pants.

Bingo.

But then that would have been slated as too small a rise...

The only real thing wrong thing about this new rule is that wigan have come out and informed us about it.

Ineptness of the highest order from the RFL, letting people find out about it via a new contract for sam tomkins and a direct quote from IL.

Ineptness from the RFL that they allowed Wigan to do this. But then, the RFL is inept in so many ways.

I wonder what all the other 'stakeholders' think of this decision? It's going to make a nightmare out of contract negotiations.

i think this has been agreed with the other clubs.... i just think its a ridiculous way for fans to find out about it.

Totally agree on the contract negotiations.... all the top level players will be looking at tomkins salary and thinking 'i fancy some of that'

Also.....I wonder how all these arrogant aussie players are going to react to being paid less than an english player in an 'inferior' league.

deffo going to be some interesting developments regarding salaries over the next few years.

I think we will see many junior players who rate themselves much better than they really are at this stage throwing their dummies out of the pram and threats to go to Union! Still can't work out were all the extra money will come from? no announcement yet of a Super League sponsor for 2012?

Somebody told me last week that it is going to be Heinz, and that it wouldn't be announced until after the four nations had finished.

Conflict of interests perhaps, given they are also a commercial partner of Wigan?

As I said earlier in this thread, the timing could have been much earlier than that. We've lost Robinson (some time ago), Farrell , Ashton & Thornley in recent history. This rule has had to come in at some point but most peoples problem seems to be it benefitted Wigan. If this rule had been suggested by Saints when Eastmond was on the move, then people would have complained that it didn't help Ashton. Unfortunately at some point something has changed. Wigan have suggested it, The RFL hadn't though of it but liked the idea and it has to be cleared with other clubs before it can be brought in. It has been brought in so clearly the clubs think it's a worthwhile route to take.

I don't see a conflict of interest at all - Wigan clearly run the league already so why not formalise the arrangement by having them and their partners officially sponsoring it?

I can't believe how incredibly angry this has made me - it was bad enough them allegedly being allowed to sign that Welsh RU has-been off cap, but this is just a whole new level of disgusting unfairness... All my enthusiasm for the new season/stadium has been utterly blown out of the water now...

It depends what happens now. If it's a one off for Wigan to keep Tomkins in the sport I don't agree with it at all. If it's something the other clubs have voted in favour of and have been consulted on, then we can't really complain too much.

I suspect however that rather than the other clubs announcing how they'll benefit from the change and what they will do with it, that it will just go quiet. Wigan will benefit but no one else will and they'll spend £100k more than anyone else, which is how they have always wanted it to be.

What annoys me though is Leneghan's comments today about how Wigan now have enough room for a £100,000+ NRL centre. Although he said they don't want one, you get the feeling that's only because there are no decent player available due to the timing of it.

A salary cap ammendment that enables British young players to stay in the sport is good, but it shouldn't be a loophole that enables clubs to add further overseas players.

Wigan were also the first club to get prize money for winning the league leaders shield.

JJB were also once a sponsor of Superleague and it wasn't a problem then, in fact I think Saints actually won it.

You seem to have your nose close to the ground. Have you heard any specifics about the cap changes? Are they in fact cap changes or just Wigan being allowed an exemption to keep Tomkins in the sport? Will the other clubs get the benefits as well?

I've not heard anything more than yourselves but I wasn't shocked by it. I would like to hear the official side from the RFL which is why I posted the link to their Operational Rules yesterday and am hoping that they will soon be updated to show any changes.

I understand your point, and agree with the rule change (subject to it being clarified; the devil is often in the detail).

It would just make more sense, and be infinitely more fair, for it to be 'with effect from the 2012 season', for example. Changing the rules midway means that within the same season, some clubs have lost their star players without having the chance to offer them further incentive to stay while others get to benefit from the rule change and effectively giving them a larger cap to play with for the forthcoming season.

Given that the Salary Cap year runs from 1 December - 30 November, the change [iis[/i being implemented 'with effect from the 2012 season'.

So technically Wigan are in breach of the salary cap? I suggest a point deduction for every pound over the cap they are. At 100,000 points, I reckon thats about 2,000 years before Wigan earn a competition point again.