Net or gross? And is that adjusted for inflation?

Man Utd have broken the British Transfer record 3 times in the premier league era, no other team has done it more than once. Of the 100 biggest transfers of the premier league era (adjusted for inflation) Man Utd account for 18 of those, second only to Chelsea. With just those 18 transfers accounting for over half a billion pounds.


How does a marquee allowance allow big signings to over-run their youngsters? Having a marquee allowance actually does the opposite in that it makes it more accessible for a club to not get 5 or 6 mediocre overseas players and pay then 75k a year, but to get 1 super star and pay him £400k a year and fill the gap with youngsters.

I have no idea about man utd, I read, ahem skimmed, an article in the financial times about it, this is all I can remember! I shall concede to superior knowledge if needs be the case on the matter!

As for bringing in a marquee not affecting bringing youngsters through - I don't believe for a second clubs would "instead of" bringing 5/6 mediocre players through they'll bring in 1 marquee, it'll be 4/5 plus the marquee, who will as have the advantage of being undropable, regardless of who rises through the ranks. And it won't be 4/5 as the none fed trained quota is rising to 7 again (terrible idea) and that's without counting the numerous ways around it

Also, clubs have a finite amount of money (even Salford) - if they're choosing to spend 400k on a marquee signing, that money has to come out of the budget somewhere else! And given the previous history a lot of clubs have in this country, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it's young player retention!

Salford sign rangi chase on a 4 year contract, theo fages has to adopt a new position to compensate etc. (I know the arguments about this, he's not ready yet, it'll take the pressure off him etc etc etc, but this is the reality of it)

Currently only the bigger clubs can afford to buy the best players whilst still producing their own. Surely a system where some of this wealth is re distributed is better for the game?

A certain Leeds player who I've know since school told me over half his salary doesn't count on the cap because he's an academy product.

The 100k home grown cap cap? No it hasn't.

The 100k cap cap is replacing the long serving bonus (which is rubbish and isn't fit for purpose) and the ets dispensation (because those payments are to be made from the rfl instead of the club from now on I believe)

Even then, do you think 50k + a couple of 10k (even on a good year you're probably only looking at 5 or so players in the England team) so roughly 100k cap space is all Leeds will benefit from the new rule?

all that has been in force for years was one player (10 years service) can have £50k of his salary not counted and a maxmum of another £50k not counted for players in ETS or knights.




Next year a proposal of every single club trained player will be subject to a maximum salary of £100k.

I can’t see why a marquee allowance would encourage a club to bring in an extra overseas player instead of simply a better one.

Personally I think the marquee allowance is wrongly thought out, along with a cap which is just a mess. But if they are sticking with this pathway then a marquee allowance isn’t just desirable it is necessary.

Well either he's lying to you (rugby players are well known for making up bull to see what they can get the fans to believe)

OR

Leeds are doing some naughty things

OR

Said rugby player doesn't know how his cap value and salary is related

OR

Leeds are perfectly legitimate in their calculations the player is right, and some other method is being used. I couldn't say, I dint know what player it is to calculate.

None of that changes the fact, the home grown cap cap comes into force in 2015.

He could be right...said player is a 10 year service player and on £99k....he is the player they have alloted the existing £50k against so more than half doesnt count against the cap.....figures can be made to say whatever you want them to....

Maybe I'm just cynical towards super leagues recruitment process as a whole!

I agree, the cap needs a rethink. A lot of people claim that it was brought in to stop clubs going bust, but what it has done is show rank mismanagement on a business level at a lot of clubs. Until we can have confidence in the abilities of the business acumen across every club, I can't really see what can be done.

I want to see a rising cap, albeit slowly (I think £2m by 2020 should be an achievable aim) but I just don't have any such confidence in enough clubs to know that that's an option. And I would be happy to see a marquee ruling for our own players (as I said in my first post on this thread) but I just know that's not what it would be used for! How long until we see some abject, mediocre Aussie paraded as marquee should this rule go through? I am a big fan of the home grown cap cap and is a step I'm the right direction, but it comes with a lot of complications due to the shrinking youth development plan of the rfl.

When the new sky deal comes into place, the 12 super league clubs will each receive £2.1m according to the figures given in the review, I just hope it's used wisely, instead of flittered away chasing a middle aged sonny bill!

I'm all for this marquee player stuff in principle but will it work? Firstly, it will require a system where the player is demosntrably funded from somewhere other than already broke clubs funds. I don't mean by loans from rich backers but by funds given to the club - maybe as share capital. Secondly, if each club has a player on big wages then there will always be some team mates who think they deserve as much and that will either cause wage inflation, discontent in the dressing room, or cause a greater drift of players to other employers (eg Union clubs).

The marquee player thing is good from a marketing perspective - builds names in the game - which is good for their revenue earning capacity and for the clubs. But, it would require consistent funding otherwise those highlighted players will get picked off by higher bidding competitions / sports.

No, no it's not.

The laugh is very firmly on you for both not understanding the current rules or your allegation that without the rule Leeds would have been miles over the cap.

As I said, in each of the past 10 seasons Leeds have not spent the full cap. In some seasons up to as much as £200k under it.

We had 8 years of no relegation to encourage youth development, surely it's more rewarding those that followed the directive?

It will also help stop "cherry picking" as has been mentioned