 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 364 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2017 | Sep 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Just to understand, from next year only the first £100k of a home grown players wage count on the cap.
So in theory, next year Wigan could pay Lockers a million, or Leeds Sinfield without breaking the cap (just examples, not suggestions)
Is that correct, and can it apply for any amount of players? Any restrictions?
If there are no restrictions, in theory wont this stop a great deal of player drain, especially if in years to come clubs produce more of their own players?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The rule for 'club trained':
Quote ="rfl rules"
B1:12A
At the time of notification in any season of the Provisional First Team Squad and First Team Squad and following any amendments during the season, a Club’s First Team Squad, where that Club is in Super League, must consist of:
a maximum of 7 players who satisfy none of the definitions of Club Trained, Federation Trained or are working towards either classification.
a minimum of 7 Club Trained Players or Academy Juniors working towards that classification.
the remainder being made up of Club Trained, Federation Trained Players or Academy Juniors working towards either classification.
B1:12B The following definitions shall apply to Clause B1:12A above:
‘Club Trained Player’: a player who has been on the Club’s register for any 3 full Seasons before the end of the Season in which he ceases to be eligible by age to play at Under 21 level. For the avoidance of doubt, from the 2010 Season onwards a player must satisfy the requirement to have been on the Club’s register for 3 full Seasons before being ineligible to play at Under 21 level in order to qualify as a ‘Club Trained Player’ and the fact that he may have qualified as a ‘Club Trained Player’ in the 2008 and/or 2009 Seasons shall be irrelevant.
‘Federation Trained Player’: a player who, for any 3 full Seasons efore the end of the Season in which he ceases to be eligible by age to play at Under 21 level has been on one of the Club’s register or the register of another Club being a member of the same rugby league Federation. For the avoidance of doubt if a player moves from one Club’s register to another Club’s register and there is a period of no more than 28 days in the Season (as defined) and any amount of the period between the 1 December and the day of the first League Match, Representative Match or Cup Tie (whichever is sooner) between being removed from one register and being registered with another Club, consecutively shall not be broken for the purposes of this clause. In addition a Club may apply for a Player who has been granted New Talent Pool status by the RSCM (see E1:5.12 below) to be granted Federation Trained status.
‘Academy Junior’: a player who is eligible by age to play at Under 21 level and who is on the Club’s Register.
'"
www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=B1
To my knowledge, the rule is:
Quote ="rfl policy review"
In Tier 1, the current Elite Squad Representative Dispensation Allowance is removed, to be replaced by regulation that limits the Salary Cap Value of a Club Trained Player at a nominal value of £100k (i.e. for any Club Trained Player with a Salary Cap Value of over £100k, his Salary Cap Value will be assessed at £100k only with any additional wage not included in his salary cap value). This would reward clubs for producing elite talent and give them an opportunity to retain this talent in the face of competition from other sports and competitions.
'"
media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf
EDIT: (I missed one of the questions) - owing to the ie, the reading of "any player over..." Would imply there are no restrictions to the number of times this rule would apply, and is only restricted by the above rulings of "club trained"
So supposing the players mentioned are on above 100k, they will benefit from this rule (which, though I presume is ratified, as it was along with the structural changes, it's not a well reported rule change (which is surprising) so I'm still looking for somewhere to totally confirm - hopefully in the coming months the rfl will publish the proper documents for the structure changes and it will be in there)
So, you could in theory offer a player that fits into the above definitions £1,000,000 and count as only £100,000 on the cap. |
|
The rule for 'club trained':
Quote ="rfl rules"
B1:12A
At the time of notification in any season of the Provisional First Team Squad and First Team Squad and following any amendments during the season, a Club’s First Team Squad, where that Club is in Super League, must consist of:
a maximum of 7 players who satisfy none of the definitions of Club Trained, Federation Trained or are working towards either classification.
a minimum of 7 Club Trained Players or Academy Juniors working towards that classification.
the remainder being made up of Club Trained, Federation Trained Players or Academy Juniors working towards either classification.
B1:12B The following definitions shall apply to Clause B1:12A above:
‘Club Trained Player’: a player who has been on the Club’s register for any 3 full Seasons before the end of the Season in which he ceases to be eligible by age to play at Under 21 level. For the avoidance of doubt, from the 2010 Season onwards a player must satisfy the requirement to have been on the Club’s register for 3 full Seasons before being ineligible to play at Under 21 level in order to qualify as a ‘Club Trained Player’ and the fact that he may have qualified as a ‘Club Trained Player’ in the 2008 and/or 2009 Seasons shall be irrelevant.
‘Federation Trained Player’: a player who, for any 3 full Seasons efore the end of the Season in which he ceases to be eligible by age to play at Under 21 level has been on one of the Club’s register or the register of another Club being a member of the same rugby league Federation. For the avoidance of doubt if a player moves from one Club’s register to another Club’s register and there is a period of no more than 28 days in the Season (as defined) and any amount of the period between the 1 December and the day of the first League Match, Representative Match or Cup Tie (whichever is sooner) between being removed from one register and being registered with another Club, consecutively shall not be broken for the purposes of this clause. In addition a Club may apply for a Player who has been granted New Talent Pool status by the RSCM (see E1:5.12 below) to be granted Federation Trained status.
‘Academy Junior’: a player who is eligible by age to play at Under 21 level and who is on the Club’s Register.
'"
www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=B1
To my knowledge, the rule is:
Quote ="rfl policy review"
In Tier 1, the current Elite Squad Representative Dispensation Allowance is removed, to be replaced by regulation that limits the Salary Cap Value of a Club Trained Player at a nominal value of £100k (i.e. for any Club Trained Player with a Salary Cap Value of over £100k, his Salary Cap Value will be assessed at £100k only with any additional wage not included in his salary cap value). This would reward clubs for producing elite talent and give them an opportunity to retain this talent in the face of competition from other sports and competitions.
'"
media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf
EDIT: (I missed one of the questions) - owing to the ie, the reading of "any player over..." Would imply there are no restrictions to the number of times this rule would apply, and is only restricted by the above rulings of "club trained"
So supposing the players mentioned are on above 100k, they will benefit from this rule (which, though I presume is ratified, as it was along with the structural changes, it's not a well reported rule change (which is surprising) so I'm still looking for somewhere to totally confirm - hopefully in the coming months the rfl will publish the proper documents for the structure changes and it will be in there)
So, you could in theory offer a player that fits into the above definitions £1,000,000 and count as only £100,000 on the cap. | |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 364 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2017 | Sep 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I wondered why its not had a bigger announcement.
In theory, with an increase in the salary cap this would pretty much lift restrictions leading to SL losing talent.
IE - Sam Tomkins II = "I have been offered £300k in the NRL"
"Well, we can afford to give you £400k"
That to me seems to solve a lot of the problems with clubs losing their talent, without just giving up the salary cap and the richest club signing up every decent player from other clubs.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Dec 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
that's why Ratchford could be a target next year for Salford, he would only count as £100k on salfords cap if they offered him £150k but on Warringtons he would be the full value if they paid over £100k........
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 364 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2017 | Sep 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Certainly makes things interesting, and it means returning players from NRL/RU would almost always be better off at their original club.
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Dec 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
only if their club could afford them in the first place
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Dec 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
but at least it means for the club trained superstars that you can get outside sponsors to foot the bill and it doesnt hit your salary cap by more than £100k per player
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="blackpoolwigan"Certainly makes things interesting, and it means returning players from NRL/RU would almost always be better off at their original club.'"
It'll be interesting to see if we see a SnapBack as it were with a few players "returning home" - fortunately the 100k minimum should stop mass exodus'
For saints, eastmond was rumoured after his falling out with bath, and looked like the first "win" for the rule, but he's since re-signed. For us at least, all eyes are on James Graham. Only time will tell if this rule actually makes us competitive for signatures (which could pave the way for a more general marquee ruling imo)
Personally, I think club trained needs better definition. I think the likes of Scott Taylor and Alex walmsley, who don't qualify as club trained, have had significant input from their respective clubs, but won't be able to benefit, should they continue on to become the superstars they're currently showing the potential for. I also think that with international appearances, the salary cap value should drop (75k limit for a player whose played for England knights, 50k for a full England appearance for example)
I have tried speaking the rfl to get clarification (I can almost smell the anorak!) so I'll see what kind of response I get about the new rule. It was quietly announced, and I think the structure debates, followed by the marquee rule debate (which was in the document that this rule was taken from, before koukash mentioned it interestingly) have taken distraction from any deeper analysis of the other rules being introduced. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1419 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2008 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2014 | Oct 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle":1k78quzzIt'll be interesting to see if we see a SnapBack as it were with a few players "returning home" - fortunately the 100k minimum should stop mass exodus'
For saints, eastmond was rumoured after his falling out with bath, and looked like the first "win" for the rule, but he's since re-signed. For us at least, all eyes are on James Graham. Only time will tell if this rule actually makes us competitive for signatures (which could pave the way for a more general marquee ruling imo)
Personally, I think club trained needs better definition. I think the likes of Scott Taylor and Alex walmsley, who don't qualify as club trained, have had significant input from their respective clubs, but won't be able to benefit, should they continue on to become the superstars they're currently showing the potential for. I also think that with international appearances, the salary cap value should drop (75k limit for a player whose played for England knights, 50k for a full England appearance for example)
I have tried speaking the rfl to get clarification (I can almost smell the anorak!) so I'll see what kind of response I get about the new rule. It was quietly announced, and I think the structure debates, followed by the marquee rule debate (which was in the document that this rule was taken from, before koukash mentioned it interestingly) have taken distraction from any deeper analysis of the other rules being introduced.'" :1k78quzz
Excellent! Be sure to let us know if you get a response, because this:
Quote :1k78quzzthat limits the Salary Cap Value of a Club Trained Player at a nominal value of £100k (i.e. for any Club Trained Player with a Salary Cap Value of over £100k, his Salary Cap Value will be assessed at £100k only with any additional wage not included in his salary cap value)'" club trained player".
EDIT: Rereading I've obviously skated over the very next sentence. Ignore me! (though I guess it's still arguable that the first interpretation holds, but I doubt it). | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
So, I've just had a lot of information thrown at me, when none other than main protagonist (or antagonist depending on how you see him) Eamon McManus releases a press statement on the matter!
The top and bottom is this: the clubs were supposed to vote on this matter on the 26th of February. However certain chairmen used the meeting as a way to promote there own ideas for the direction of the rulings, resulting in the clubs being unable to vote on this matter (proposal 5.3.11 ) and another, regarding increased funding (for a smaller number) of academies (proposal 5.4.5)
The idea for the home grown player rule, along with the reintroduction of an optional reserves league (proposal 5.4.21) was initially supposed to be the first phase in the redevelopment of the salary cap, with the second phase being to bring in a more generalised "marquee" signing rule to ensure clubs had every option available to them to pursue the best possible talent in the league and abroad. Some clubs felt that this was too slow paced, and proposed the marquee ruling brought in straight away, without consideration to the first phase.
The rfl are still hopeful that a vote can be taken, (and if required, ratified) before a self set deadline to be able to bring this rule in before the start of 2015.
McManus sounds eager to bring it to the forefront: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3859?
As I find out more, I will post it here. I am somewhat frustrated that we are not as far as I thought, but even more concerned that this is going to turn into a bit of a standoff between those wanting marquee exemption and those wanting home grown exemption with neither garnering enough support to be forced through. |
|
So, I've just had a lot of information thrown at me, when none other than main protagonist (or antagonist depending on how you see him) Eamon McManus releases a press statement on the matter!
The top and bottom is this: the clubs were supposed to vote on this matter on the 26th of February. However certain chairmen used the meeting as a way to promote there own ideas for the direction of the rulings, resulting in the clubs being unable to vote on this matter (proposal 5.3.11 ) and another, regarding increased funding (for a smaller number) of academies (proposal 5.4.5)
The idea for the home grown player rule, along with the reintroduction of an optional reserves league (proposal 5.4.21) was initially supposed to be the first phase in the redevelopment of the salary cap, with the second phase being to bring in a more generalised "marquee" signing rule to ensure clubs had every option available to them to pursue the best possible talent in the league and abroad. Some clubs felt that this was too slow paced, and proposed the marquee ruling brought in straight away, without consideration to the first phase.
The rfl are still hopeful that a vote can be taken, (and if required, ratified) before a self set deadline to be able to bring this rule in before the start of 2015.
McManus sounds eager to bring it to the forefront: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3859?
As I find out more, I will post it here. I am somewhat frustrated that we are not as far as I thought, but even more concerned that this is going to turn into a bit of a standoff between those wanting marquee exemption and those wanting home grown exemption with neither garnering enough support to be forced through. | |
|
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
