Golden ticket is a joke for me that is not what i want to see in the game. I am in favour of allowing any SL side 1 player off the cap. That's it for me no Golden Ticket no handouts to other clubs. You get 1 as well as the new exemption rule re youngsters coming through.

If i have misled you i am sorry but i am opposed to any rule which sees an owner buy the ticket from another club. 1 Marquee player per club off the cap. Straight simple no messing around. And as stated the money goes to the RFL who pays the player the wage. That is to ensure the money is available and not monopoly money and ensures that the clubs can afford to pay the other players without going into trouble.

I don't understand why these things are decided by clubs voting. The RFL should be making these decisions for the good of the game rather than individual clubs voting in their own interests. London, Wakefield, Castleford and Bradford will always vote for the status quo because if the game progresses they won't progress with it, they'll be left behind.

This golden ticket does seem odd on the face of it, but if a wealthy chairman of one club is giving monies, lets take the 200K figure, to a club in need, how can that be a bad thing?... Unless, of course, your club is happy to bounce along the bottom moaning about it...... We don't live in a communist utopia, some clubs will always be bigger than other, some clubs will always be wealthier than others... but if we just accept the lowest common denominator as the norm, we may as well pack in now under the onslaught we will see over the next couple of years from Union, and the NRL.

Problem is that all it would do is let Salford get a foothold on top 4 without the infrastructure in developing a youth system. The would buy 2-4 tickets and in `1 go become a top 4 side. Even the NRL has only 1 marquee player per club if i am correct.

200k for a badly run club will do very little for the game. All that will do is paper over the cracks a poor run club will always be poorly run. And as we know a fool and his money is soon parted. I just hope that sides can get 1 per side and get as many youth developed players off the cap after the first 100k. That system to us is a golden ticket as from what i saw today, Hampshire, Manfredi, Thornley, and Burgess would be good enough now for most Super League sides and we seriously need to keep them all if possible.

But we don't live in a capitalist utopia either. For the golden ticket to work, all clubs (or at least a vast majority) need to be comfortably spending less than they could. As has been said, we currently only have 6 teams financially capable of bidding on tickets - and just because they can doesn't mean they will - both Wigan and saints would fall into the can but won't category (given how you handle club trained players leaving) - Leeds are always complaining about the board being tight fisted with money, which leaves Huddersfield, Salford and Warrington who would be capable of bidding on tickets - I don't know enough about huddersfields finances, and whilst Warrington are profit making I can't see Moran wanting to disrupt that too much - which would leave koukash bidding (which would return us to a situation of Wigan in the 80s) - nobody can think that's a good thing?

Further what happens if a club becomes reliant on the money coming in from selling golden tickets? Surely that's just papering over the cracks? What would be better is to have all clubs capable of surviving on it's own income, without needing a bit on the side from koukash to let him do what he wants?

One per side would be perfect, and the ideal... But clubs don't seem to be prepared, or able to get a shift on... For those clubs thinking "Oh just listen to the likes of Wigan, whining cause they are losing players to the NRL or Union", it affects them too, cause will will take your talent!!!! Some sort of exemption will help them to keep their top talent too... I doubt ANYBODY sees this as a panacea for all ill's, but we cannot just roll over and lose talent from our game...

I'm done, cause i know some would argue blacks white if they want to...

This is the crux of the problem. The two sides appear to be the Natural Selection proponents who will let teams die for the benefit of clubs controlling their own destiny; and the Holistic types who recognise the massive wastage that natural selection allows and try to tend towards similar ends through coercion and management instead. Arguably just the base political spectrum tbh, so no surprises there.

I do wonder if a strategy of handing out ropes and letting clubs either thrive or indeed hang themselves could work if we do enough to mitigate the inefficiencies of failure. I wonder if the RFL committed to openly preying upon faltering clubs; buying up facilities, club shares etc with a view to increasing centralisation, whether such a strategy could have long term benefits. Obviously there's a massive cost-benefit calculation to be done with respect to the benefits of centralisation, but the thought may be worth entertaining.

And from next year they do have some sort of exemption - the home grown cap rule helps protect (shockingly) home grown players from being poached - it's not ideal but it's a start!

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Not sure where you're looking? companycheck.co.uk/company/00331905 Liabilities 2mil net worth 14mil Also, with a closer look none of the liabilities are director loans (as was said) Wigan as a comparison companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... UB-LIMITED Liabilities 5mil Different accounting techniques by the looks of it, but no 13mill liabilities'" You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Not sure where you're looking? companycheck.co.uk/company/00331905 Liabilities 2mil net worth 14mil Also, with a closer look none of the liabilities are director loans (as was said) Wigan as a comparison companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... UB-LIMITED Liabilities 5mil Different accounting techniques by the looks of it, but no 13mill liabilities'" You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials'" Yep, current liabilities were 2 mill (aka both sites agree) - I imagine the rest are the remaining overheads from the stadium (not that I know for sure) - obviously how it evolves in the coming years will confirm this - I doubt we paid for it as a lump sum (and equally I doubt we got paid for KR in a lump sum) The rest of the figures match too.

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials'" Yep, current liabilities were 2 mill (aka both sites agree) - I imagine the rest are the remaining overheads from the stadium (not that I know for sure) - obviously how it evolves in the coming years will confirm this - I doubt we paid for it as a lump sum (and equally I doubt we got paid for KR in a lump sum) The rest of the figures match too.

I see this gem got what it deserved....

Given Wigan paid £475K for Fielden, its not inconceivable that big money could change hands - especially if it was tied up with transfer of a player like Chase from a smaller club to a bigger (spending) one.

I thought it was a bit of a idea at first, but the more I think about it, the more it has some merit - a possible cash injection for struggling clubs and the chance for rich clubs to spend big to bring/keep superstars in SL.
I'm all for the cap trying to keep clubs from spending beyond their means, but not for the pretence of keeping a competition extra competitive.

I think its a major problem letting a club vote be the final decision. Clubs vote for what's good for them selves, if they know they can't afford extra wages for a marquee player, they won't want them allowed. Similary, I seem to recall a couple of years ago a vote on raising the salary cap which Leeds and Wigan voted against - sure, they have the money but they also had the two best squads and were winning trophies, so why would they want things to change?

I'm not saying we shouldn't listen tot he clubs, but I think its folly to always give them the final say.

You think your stadium's worth 14m? That's even funnier than the dreadnoughts and Macmanus' comment at the end of his statement about the game finally being in order...

Even a compromise of doubling the salary cap i think most people could accept, the fact Wakefield and the like can't spend to it is not our problem.

My mate spent 6k on a holiday for him and his Wife in New Zealand, I would love to be able to afford it and go to the same place but I can't and I accept that, should we limit everyone to a weekend in Bognor Regis eating fish and chips every night because 'it's not fair.
Likewise I'm a grown adult so I'm not going to spend 6k to keep up with the joneses just because he has.
I spend what I can afford because I know spending beyond that will leave me homeless.
My life probably won't be as enriched as his due to his freedom with the money, similar to a Wakefield fan won't enjoy the nights out at Old Trafford, that's life, it isn't fair and as Vossy says "tough titties"

No but we all benefit from the Welfare State which effectively means that no-one should starve and guarantees at least a minimum standard of living. Applying that principle to sports seems reasonable enough to me -

Look up the dictionary definition of league -
"a covenant or compact made between persons, parties, states, etc., for the promotion or maintenance of common interests or for mutual assistance or service"

The RFL and any other sporting organisation try to allow clubs to compete on a reasonably level playing field. I suppose it depends on what you think the point of a league is. If you believe in just allowing the rich to dominate because that is 'fair' then you probably end up with the Scottish Football League. If you keep the Salary Cap etc then you may end up with the NRL. I know which I'd prefer.

'May end up with NRL'

May, not will.

In truth we attract a minimum of 12 rich backers and we're good, as Koukash is seeing all that money isn't helping with all the restraints, maybe the salary cap puts off the rich backer?

Maybe.

Its a danger i agree that he could get bored and leave. He is far better for the game than owners he do not invest or spend. But some clubs can not afford it and that is the bigger problem. But the ones that can not spend do not spend to the cap whilst controlling what all the owners have to do. Its poor run clubs who run SL.

We are not not doing that though are we. In RL in the UK we are imposing a [imaximum standard[/i by preventing those who can afford it from competing for the signatures of the best players.

In Australia their salary cap regulations include a minimum wage for all players in a clubs top 25 first team squad. It is AUD $80,000 or approx £43K. (Total cost £1.075m id you paid all 25 players that wage).

I think if you want minimum standards brought in, it should mean that kind of thing and if clubs can't pay it they have no right to be in the league. I'd go further and say if you can't afford to pay to the salary cap you won't be competitive so I'd use that as qualification for the league as well.



You are taking that definition out of context with your definition being a more political definition relating and what not to alliances similar to this

"An association of states, organizations, or individuals for common action; an alliance."

Here is the definition of league when it refers to sport from the free on-line dictionary (which is where the above definition also comes from).

"Sports An association of teams or clubs that compete chiefly among themselves."

Nothing to do with "maintenance of common interests or for mutual assistance or service" or such things.




You won't end up with the NRL at all. It is myth their teams are all equally wealthy anyway. Sport is about competition and artificial limits on competition in sport are false. This is not the welfare state but sport. They are different and trying to transfer the principles of the welfare state to a naturally competitive environment just does not work.

As ever, a well argued response. I find myself agreeing with you!

I guess that my worry is that Rugby League in this country just cannot get the support of either ordinary people or business people in order to compete with the NRL or Union. I feel that if we adopted the type of winner takes all mentality that some posters are arguing for, then the game will die and we will be left with a few (relatively) rich clubs. My definition of league was indeed political, but political as you know, encompasses all of life.

The original idea of promoting a league was to provide competition but also to provide support for each other. You are right that sport IS about competition - but would you say that sport is about anything else? For me -It certainly has a role in the community and it provides entertainment too.

What I don't want is to see the likes of Bradford die. Actually I find the lack of support on here for less succesful clubs quite depressing. I thought we were a community in Rugby League? Bradford may have been badly run - but it is the players and fans that suffer. And ultimately we do too. I'm not interested in watching Wigan in an endless groundhog day of Saints derby matches.

i find it very sad whats happened at the bulls and i feel for the fans but.... lets not forget they have already been bailed out once by the rlf. Id love a strong superleague but surely there comes a point where people say enough is enough? If they arnt being run properly then they shouldnt be in superleague and lets give someone else a chance.

Yes I agree with you.

But there may come a time when there won't be anyone else to step up. But for now yes, let's give the likes of Leigh and Featherstone a chance.