m.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849 McManus point of view

m.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849 McManus point of view

And what a load of tripe it is! It isn't compulsory to spend "millions" (really that much?) on a player. Koucash wouldn't be going into debt if he did spend so why not let him? I think we all know the answer, don't we?

And how many overseas players does McManus have in the Saints team.
Three of the teams that vote FOR the marquee signings are the only ones to have won anything at first team or academy level for six years.

This.

This too.

Never mind the pseudo history lesson on the First World War. Wanting to create a new clause by which we can at least hang onto one top player is likened to an arms race that cost the lives of millions?

What kind of f***ing straw-grasping bullsh*t is that!

I disagree. I think he has a couple of very valid points. One of the worst things to happen to RL recently imo is the loss of the U21's. I would rather the money that would be used for a 'marquee' player be spent on producing future talent and giving a route into the first team from U19's rather than lining the pockets of the odd player.

And when we get a great talent we can sell them for a profit to NRL or RU. How are we going to keep players like Sam Tomkins if we can not compete with NRL or Union on wages.

That response from McManus reminds me of the business man who drives a Rolls Royce holidays in the Caribbean and bleats that he can't afford to pay the minimum wage to his employees.

That's why he has the Roller and holidays in the Caribbean.

If this marquee player ever gets through expect him to back investing in Wigan R.L.

His argument was garbage. Koucash's plan if I understand it correctly would allow, say, the Bulls to sell their golden ticket to, say, Koucash for £200k. Bradford gain an unexpected £200k to prop themselves up and Koucash can bring 2 big names into the game. Where exactly is the downside?

Currently: Salford spend to cap, Bradford can't compete with rest of league.

Golden ticket 1: Salford spend to cap, also have 2 star players, Bradford have 200k, still can't compete.

Golden ticket 2: Salford spend to cap, have 1 star player, Bradford don't sell golden ticket in fear of people pulling away, still can't compete.


So Bradford are still in the same boat being uncompetitive no matter what the scenario but they gain 200k and Salford put more on their gate numbers in the best case.

No I don't think that clubs haven't been trying for decades to raise more cash! Or if they have they have failed miserably at it. Either way it is not good enough and no reason to persist with a cap level set for the benefit of the incompetent nor is it a reason to knock back initiatives such as that proposed by Koukash.

There is another possibility I suppose. The people running these clubs are in fact unbeknown to us all financial and marketing geniuses but despite their best efforts they still can't generate enough cash for their clubs to spend to the cap or to go for the marquee signing idea. If so that tells us it is time to stop flogging a dead horse.

So which is it? They aren't trying? They are trying but are not up to the job? Or they are flogging a dead horse?

Mo Lindsay was 100% right all those years ago when he said SL could not support the current number of clubs it had then as a professional sport so clubs needed to merge. Mergers were never on of course but I guess he was trying to avoid the obvious that some clubs needed to just forget about the idea of remaining or becoming professional. I don't think anything has changed in that regard and they have been a millstone ever since.

I quite agree. One of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read from a chairman.

As to scrapping the U21 league that was a screw up because IIRC it didn't pan out as expected with a much broader dual reg system with clubs that were in effect feeder teams. I think implying Wigan voted in favour [uin order to save £30K[/u is a completely inaccurate misrepresentation.

He then goes on to say he favours a cap exemption for home grown players rather than going after NRL players. Well just how much does he think Wigan would have had to pay to keep the likes of Sam T here? A salary competitive to that on offer in the NRL, that is how much!

He is implying it would be cheaper to keep UK players than buy NRL stars but it obviously has not crossed his mind that this is wishful thinking anyway and that had this system been in place already Wigan's marquee player may well have been Sam T !!!!

No one is saying you have to buy an NRL player as your marquee signing.

Correct... That's a bizarre rant from a chairman

Wigan can offer Sam tomkins whatever they like from next year (2015) all home grown players are limited to £100k on the cap. Sign away, offer him a million a year. Same with charnley.

Also nothing is saying that. There's also nothing saying that some clubs will go and massively over spend on a mediocre "marquee" signing. But you can bet they will. As McManus says, if saints signed a marquee, the Wigan fans will turn around at lenaghan and say well why aren't we signing one. Saints and Wigan are in a strong financial position, so it doesn't matter too much, but there will be constant "outdoing" by some clubs - it's the competitive nature sure, but the business sense of "we can't really afford this" won't come in until it's too late.

Further, some clubs are finally getting it into their heads that promoting youth and development is the way to go - this is what is good for the game. This is nothing more than a big shiny distraction to make them forget that lesson ,.. Again.

Agree with McManus broadly.
First that bit about the First World War is utter nonsense so lets bin that!

I do agree that getting rid of the U21s was a mistake and something needs to be done to rectify it. However, Wigan have voted to abandon the U21s yet our younger players have the best opportunity to play first team from the U19s and are very good at it.
The best way to ensure clubs develop their own talent is IMO to have a Club Trained quota in the game day 17. I'd start at 4 and increase to 8 over five years.
That would compel clubs to have effective scouting, scholarship and academy set ups.
I can see the sense of a marquee player with the likes of Sam. However it's easy to understand McManus's view as the Marquee player he signed was Hohaia. No wonder he doesn't want the official title of "Marquee Player" being designated to Hohaia.

1.Lancashire
2.Cheshire
3.Merseyside
4.Gtr Manchester
5.Cumbria (And Scotland)
6.London (immediate surrounding counties)
7.N.Wales
8.S.Wales
9.N. Yorkshire
10.S. Yorkshire
11.W. Yorkshire
12.Midlands (encompasses Midlands, Derbyshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Warwickshire) possibly the whole South West corner too, although geographical huge a weak selection area
13.France
14.E. Yorkshire (encompasses the whole North east corner of England too).

I had an idea that I thought could make sense, rather than clubs having no under 23 side have regional sides that are funded by both the club's and the rfl, it would also ensure better crowds. Although they are an under 23 side you still allow overage first teamers to play but only if they are recovering from injury and getting fitness up to go back in the first team.

Players are effectively loaned out to the regional side, all the club's staff lower than the first team now work for a region with wages part funded by the club's and the rfl.

County selection is based on 3 things and you can only interchange through a maximum of 3 counties but you are allowed to mix between those 3 counties as often as like if overage first teamer regaining fitness.

A player playing for Wire (Cheshire) born in Hull (East Yorkshire) and living in Salford (Gtr Manchester) as those options open to him.

You're also telling me tribal loyalty won't see them gain more crowds, it allows teams like Hull KR/FC and Wakefield and Cas to unite in a common cause, players retained to at least am age in which we can genuinely see if they'll make it.

It's win win.

I think your areas would need some significant work, France has around 30,000 players of RL in the south of the country. Wales has rather less. Yorkshire has 4 groups while Merseyside is unrepresented?

I would consider something different and look to the American Football and it's approach.

France only have one rep team, St Helens are Merseyside and there is an amateur game in St Helens, Yorkshire has 4 groups because Yorkshire needs 4 groups, remember we are the M62 sport.
There could be potentially young Wigan lads contracted to Wigan who have a couple of players in Cumbria, some in Lancs, some in Cheshire.
You could also look to get a little bit of sponsorship bringing in a little bit more that all goes to a central fund.

In short create something that's easier to manage, easier to fund and easier to market YET keeping a channel open for the more promising lads, under 19's would still be club based, my idea is something higher quality than a club set up but lower than the first team.

I think a marquee rule should be introduced, but the teams that agree to it have to agree to fund an U23's comp. if you had 6 of the richer clubs involved, they would effectively be paying for smaller clubs U23's so there's some benefit for everyone, including the sport.
If the U21's only cost £30k, then the richer clubs who want a marquee player could easily afford £60k each to fund the whole U23's comp

Just leaves us where we are now, bigger clubs funding youth development, "cellar dwellers" just getting by with no incentive to improve.

I've been thinking along similar lines myself for a while. The death of the intermediate academy system is a great opportunity for the rationalisation of Reserve levels. As much as we've incentivised clubs to up player supply, if the league is really dedicated to evening out competition, then the player pathway should be held by everyone and open to everyone.

Doesn't have any bearing on the Golden Ticket idea though imo. It's interesting, I'll give them that - and it's nice to see at least someone has read some undergraduate economics textbooks with the well-defined-property-rights aspect.

It's not perfect, but would deliver a route to better player development across the league. Teams like Cas have always produced great talent but then can't afford to keep them

See that's it, the rich clubs now like Wigan and Leeds are developing kids because they have money to burn that they can't spend on their first team. They produce an excess amount of players and the ones that don't make the first teams of those teams get picked up by everyone else.

It makes sense why the bottom feeders don't want change.