Quote: Cruncher "
However, it was quite encouraging to hear about the new modifications that have already been and are still being made to the cap - the Sean O'Loughlin 'club-trained player' development was excellent news.'"
It's very good but it does in effect increase the cap (because he's off it) by the amount of his wages. So if he was on £160K our salary spend could be £1.76m instead of £1.6m, an effective 10% increase in one go. Good news on the one hand but if IL thinks we can't afford an increase anyway, isn't it a bit of a moot point?
Quote: Cruncher "I also like the sound of the new Rugby Union recruitment scheme. I still can't help wondering if some kind of cap leeway could be introduced on players setting up their own sponsorship deals, etc, as that wouldn't be money lost to the game, but it sounds as if more moves are under consideration, so there's plenty of scope for optimism.
'"
I don't understand the RU recruitment scheme. Aren't we always slagging them off for not producing their own players and looking at our young stars? Aren't we supposed to produce enough players anyway and the problem is perceived to be being able to keep what we produce in the face of high wages in RU (and now the NRL), not that we need recruit RU players? What's the point in dispensations for unknown young RU players if we can't keep a Mossop or a Farrell?
I agree about sponsorship and marketing deals for players. I have been saying this should happen for some time. The fact any such deal would currently count in the cap is mad. Not only does it preclude players from earning money this way it also means they are
not gaining any publicity for the game by being the face of some product or other on TV or in the press. Can you imagine what kind of advertising could have been made when Andy Farrell was playing and he played on with his broken knose all badaged up? What an image for the marketeers that would have been. Sadly I don't think we have any players with a high enough profile these days to get anyone interesed.