it hasn't had that effect. At all. And it isn't silly to say so. It's well evidenced. For instance the 'golden generation' at leeds who won the GF were all brought in to Leeds prior to the salary cap. In fact most were first team players before the salary cap came in to effect.

Leeds and saints didn't put in place the youth development structures they now benefit from as a response to the salary cap. They already had them in place. Your statement is factually incorrect and demonstrably untrue.

The salary cap acts as a disincentive to youth development as it guarantees you produce quality players (ones you would otherwise keep) for your rivals.

Also as Dr Koukash (and earlier Moran and Davy) discovered. The SC stops new clubs challenging.

Please can you quantify 'kickstarting the youth development programme', and provide some real figures for 'producing more young talent'?

Thanks

Except that the cap as it currently exists provides extra allowances for clubs who produce players for the England and England Knights squads. It also enables clubs to exempt some salary for long-serving players, who will typically be ones you've produced yourself.

So in a very real, tangible way it does provide a stimulus for youth development. The more young players you get to go on and play at international level, the higher your salary cap figure.

How is the doc going to get around this..

"Clubs will only be allowed to sign a marquee player if they meet clearly-defined affordability criteria based around their income and expenditure."

Those numbers a negligible amount and fixed at that relatively low amount. It is a very maximum of 150k. About 7% of the total cap figure.

Also again. Long serving allowances disadvantage new clubs challenging.

Count up the number of players who have a realistic shout of making the Aussie or Kiwi squads today and compare that number with some of the garbage GB teams we were churning out ten or more years ago.

At a club level - Saints have performance metrics coming out of their ears (Mike Rush will give you chapter and verse on why the club's juniors are much better today should you so wish to ask). I'm sure this is the case at most SL clubs since measurement in myriad facets and sub-facets of the junior training program is one of the big advances in SL.

So [iyou[/i can't then?

Since when was the cap 2.1 million, or is that what Leeds think it is.

7.59493670886% is the exact amount if 'about 7%' is too vague for you.

Answer my question you pedant. Incidentally it is 175k max which is actually 9.19669669669669669669669% of the actual SC. So I hold with my opinion that this will not make much difference other than to make a sugar daddy not want to spend much on youth development as well.

As for clubs having to pass certain Income/expenditure rules (no details available) it could be that the likes of Wakefield and Salford may not be allowed a Marquee player

How funny would that be? Marwan has banged on about this for years, would be great to see him banned from using it. I can imagine his Twitter feed would be good reading.

So many posters in this thread who don't understand what the salary cap is for. The salary cap is to stop clubs from hoarding quality players and buying out the competition a la Man City, not to prevent teams from signing good players. For the Hull fan whinging, your club can also sign a marquee player, the only difference is that your chairman is unambitious.

No it's not. It's for protecting the clubs from their owners chasing short term gain and jeopardising the long term stability of the club.

The long service exemption is 50k. The ets exemption is 100k. That's a 150k. Of 1.975m (1.825+150k) that is about 7.6%

It's also not in the rules for next year. It's specified to apply to 2012,2013,2014 and 2015

What would be interesting would be people's opinions about how their club would use this.

I have no doubt Saints will use it on Roby and free up some cap room to spend on the squad. I can't see us chasing superstars with it.