There aren't enough clubs who are patient, for the game to survive at a professional level.

I'm all for enforced development. Sadly I believe it's borderline illegal which means the next best thing is to incentivise them. The home grown rule does so. Making the u19s grand final pay off more than the actual grand final as well (though that's in a world where the governing body is actually capable of bringing in sponsorship)

Tell me, do you think saints are badly managed? Given the flops that josh perry and lance hohaia we must be looking to get rid of McManus surely? There is definitely a difference between bad management and speculation.

You now think we have reached the required level. Now is that because that all Saints can afford. The day we are at the required level is when all the clubs spend to the maximum of the cap which does not happen. And we get to keep the best players in SL.

So in your view we should just scrap all poor clubs who's done "nothing" for super league and have a league of saints, Wigan, Leeds, Salford and Warrington.

If the good Doc is in this for the long run, why doesn't he come out with a long term plan for Salford like developing their youth system or campaign about getting a reduction on the cap for home grown players?

I'll tell you why he's not, it's because he wants Instant success the easy way and the only way me knows by throwing cash at it.

I try and keep my feelings for the game and saints separate ...

I would raise the cap to £2m, with the home grown rule limiting value of 100k. With that being limited to 75k on his first England knights appearance and 50k on his first full England debut. I would also make any world XIII player from England (burgess and graham currently) cost 0 on the cap IF there home grown club rejects first refusal (so in the burgess example, Bradford (given their state) refuse burgess, meaning he counts for 0 for whoever in super league he does sign for; in the case the club offer a contract - if/ when the player refuses he enters the free market costing 0 for clubs)

I'd also make it so for every player in the England and England knights team, their home club gets an extra vote in league matters, and extra for winning the league leaders (which people complain is undervalued) and the grand final (12 vote base, 50 from England representatives, 2 for grand final winners 1 for league leaders)

The first section is a good idea. As for the LLS i would have them in the WCC match against the side top of the NRL and SL and have a big prize pot shared between the 2 clubs. That would sort out teams like us slacking from July onwards.

Back in the 80/90's Wigan dominated because everyone was behind them financially, Leeds could compete monetary wise but everyone struggled. In that day and age a salary cap would have actually made sense.

Now we have

Wigan, Leeds, St Helens, Warrington, Salford, Huddersfield, Hull FC, and then teams with a decent backer like Widnes and Catalan.

8 teams that are pretty well secure

Then you have London with an owner with more money than sense and they potentially have the power to have a decent squad just need to sort the fans out and sell the club better.

Then you have Wakefield, Castleford, Bradford, Hull KR and really it's because of these 4 teams we are held back.

How many if the 8 teams that you've listed above actually make profit ?

If you think longer term though, you attract the stars of the game, more bums on seats in the stadium and in front of sky, more people is an easier sell for sponsorship and a stronger position to negotiate better terms on TV deals.
Those 8 teams are currently in a strong position to compete now but need to improve revenue streams, sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate.

You honestly believe one signing for hundreds and hundreds of thousands will put enough bums on seats to pay that back ?

I don't think so.

No, not straight away but I believe in the domino effect.

I just think we giving teams a rope to hang themselves.

If we can't trust grown adults who are supposedly successful business people to run a club then who can we trust.

Look at the past history mate. The bulls (twice), Wakefield, London all been into administration. Cas, hull KR both had money problems.

I think only Leeds and Wigan (sold players) made a profit last year and the rest are losing money. We had the big spenders like Wigan & Widnes in the 80/90s on verge of going out of existence.

I don't think trust is the problem, it's crazy spending when no money coming in which puts the marquee player thing to bed really.

Problem was that they signed more than 1 expensive player. Clubs having 1 if they can afford it is not a big issue. Using Widnes/Wigan of the 80/90's is a little bit of an excuse for not giving it a go. As long as the Money does not come from the clubs and is from the owners own pocket then i really do not see it being a big problem.

Problem arises if 1 team could go after Sam Tomkins, SBW, Sam Burgess, Jama Idris and then leverage them on the club. But if most teams could get 1 and afford it it improves SL and generates much needed publicity. Doing nothing will kill the game on a professional level. We will end up with a professional game but semi pro standards.

Most can afford one marquee player can they ?

Only two clubs turned over a profit which are Leeds and Wigan.

Leeds - they are a top club. They are run brilliantly these days. They bring home grown players thru with a mix of British and overseas but certainly don't go out blowing the cash like back in the 80s but they not done to bad on the field have they ?

Wigan - they have sold many players for fees over last few years which results in profit but if they can't keep the likes of tomkins how the hell can they blow X amount on marquee?

This whole thing has such a ring of deja vu about it.

Doesn't seem like yesterday when we Wigan fans were worried an inflexible Salary Cap was going to cost us a lot of talented players, and a procession of Saints fans were coming on here to tell us that wouldn't happen and that we needed to SC to stop our clubs going bust.

And look what's happened since. It's cost us a lot of talented players and clubs have still gone bust.

I wouldn't care if it wasn't so much rank hypocrisy. The big clubs like Wigan, and now Wire and Salford, get accused of acting out of self-interest, when it is nakedly transparent that smaller clubs like Saints, Cas, Wakey etc, are desperate to pin the game back at the lowly level where they can comfortably operate - even though that means we are sliding slowly backwards towards semi-professionalism. Perhaps they can assure us that won't happen - just like they gave us all those assurances last time.

Not to mention all that cash for winning all those trophies

Smaller clubs like saints





Wigan are a selling club these days



Wigan are lucky to still be here with your past history with spending players.

If you can afford to sign marquee players then why can't you afford to keep Sam tomkins? You get a home grown player salary exemption as well don't forget.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. What is it now? 4/5 in about 15 years?

I take you secured Matt Bowen with all the trophy winning cash

I believe the plan allowed those clubs not wishing to use their golden ticket to sell them for £200k. If that isn't bringing money into the game I don't know what is.

So why did IL vote for it then. He can not keep Tomkins simply as if he pays him £750k per season he would have to let go Charnley, Mcilorum, Taylor and a few more and that would kill us off. IL knows he can not keep them and they will go to others leagues or sports form more money. Hence the 5 year deals and get a fee 3 years in. Its obvious you have no understanding of how the cap is draining players from the game to NRL or union. Leeds and Wigan voted for it. Or did you miss that and you just think this is Salford's all doing. Its Saints who cannot afford it its that obvious. The salary cap exemption was voted on a few weeks ago. Tomkins deal to NZW was done almost a year ago whilst not officially announced most knew about it. Interesting to see what happens in 3 years time though. But what is more apparent that Saints can not afford to offer Graham a deal and he is now on the exempt list.

Do you think that owners of Salford, Wigan, Leeds and Warrington are poor. Owners in football, union etc will dip into their own pockets as they can afford it.

Just remember the 2 brilliantly profitable clubs want it its poor clubs like Saints who do not.

Saints fans are afraid as they do not feel their club can afford to do it.

If you doesn't like the 'smaller club' tag, your chairman needs to stop behaving as if he runs one.

You know what I would propose, and it has nothing to do with whether saints can afford it.

The golden ticket idea simply wouldn't work. There are far too many what if situations, and after years of over complicated rules leading to "breaking the spirit of ... " we should be looking for a simple, easy rule, if a marquee rule has to be brought in. 1 per club. The classic scenario for golden ticket: Salford buy a golden ticket for 200k (is that per year?) they sign a marquee on a 2 year contract and in the first year the team that sold the golden ticket gets relegate - do Salford have to forfeit the golden ticket they bought? Or Is it tough luck to the team whose come up? If they give it up they have only a couple of months to release players to fit the marquee under the cap. If it's though luck to the promoted team how are they expected to compete?

As to the suggestion we have 6-7 teams who could capably compete for these tickets - realistically any "open market" would see only Salford bidding on all the tickets.

Not supporting a marquee signing rule doesn't make McManus "running a small club" - that's nothing more than "you don't agree with my opinion so I'm going to insult you until you agree with me"

Saints ain't a poor team and I certainly don't think they are.


In fact we are debt free.