I think that what you have to realise is that that these "scouts" from Sale and London Irish are part of the EX Wigan scouting system.

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. I am referring to when you come away from a game saying 'so-and-so didn't make a single error today'
It is the decision making which makes you think 'they are special'

Any particular reason why their now EX scouts?

Or was it just a case of updating the scouting system and they were the casualties?

I imagine, much like the players, the union teams simply offer them more cash.

Also to note. The players agents are not exactly loyal to rugby league.They tout their players to rugby union knowing they will get a greater deal for their client and for themselves.

As long as Rugby League's salary cap remains as low and as inflexible as it is, at the start of every promising player's career, his agent knows he will reach a point - probably well before mid-way - beyond which RL will not be able to pay him what he's worth. If he hasn't already been touted to Union, that is the moment when he will be.

It's all about maximising your career potential, and why not? These guys are not like us fans. They are more likeJoe Lydon and Mick Hogan, in that they view sport as their job? Mick and Joe talked the talk on Wigan's behalf, but when an improved cash offer came along, they were off like a shot. You can't blame them and you can't blame the players and their agents for doing the same thing.

I'd imagine that every exciting young player Wigan have, particularly among the backs, will at some point - if they haven't already - be told by the most important and influential player in their professional life (their agent) that they must consider, at some stage, testing the water with Rugby Union.

That's what we're up against as long as we are being forced to pay our players relatively low wages.

Totally correct



Now put on your tin hat for the incoming barrage from the pro cappers.

From 2012 most SL clubs will have modern stadia and be able to maximise the income streams that they bring. Thus raising turnover considerably.
The cap has been at the same figure (perhaps reduced) since its inception and lost 25-30% of its purchasing power through inflation so the £1.65m needs to be raised massively or abolished altogether.
Unless we do take action on the cap our best players will either go to Union or the NRL both of which will be able to offer far better salaries than SL clubs can pay.
From 2012 the cap needs to be reviewed with a view to countering the threats from Union and the NRL so we can keep our best players in Super League and maximise the strength of Super League.

Forced to?

Wigan have been making losses at their current (low in your opinion) salary cap level, Northampton have made 9 consecutive years of profits at their (high in your opinion) salary cap level.

There is a clue in there as to why Northampton have a bigger cap to play with than Wigan and can tempt away players like Ashton (and own their own ground), and it has nothing to do with the nasty RFL trying to scupper Wigan with their communist cap.

you sure about that?
not that i know the finances etc but i was fairly sure that we have been making a profit most years.

And here comes the first one, right on cue.

I'm sure you feel comfortable and confident talking about Wigan's past financial problems, but unfortunately I wasn't, I was talking about RL (and using Wigan as an example - albeit a good one, because of the youth factor). And if you think the tapping up of young talent isn't an issue for the wider game, then you are doing a fairly good impression of an ostritch.

It is a problem which will only get bigger. If the figures bounded around regarding Ashton are to be believed, then RL as a whole has a huge problem. Is any SL club willing to pay a potentially good player the salary of an established player (£60k), after a handful of games?

It comes back to the simple question; how do we compete with a far wealthier game?

In short, you can't. Whatever you do re. the cap - even if you were to take the drasic measure of abolishing it altogether - there would still be losses. But there's no need to make it easier for Union than it needs to be.

At present, Wigan - and I can only talk about Wigan, because they're the club whose workings I'm most familiar with (even though this makes it easier for certain folk to deliberatley misunderstand what I'm trying to say) - Wigan have ring-fenced most of their young talent because's IL's rebalancing of the books has meant that we are able to pay them a lot more than they were getting in Lindsay and Whelan's heyday. But I'm reliably informed that almost all of Wigan's most promising kids have already been spoken to by RU scouts, and in many cases have been offered bigger deals than they are currently on. There will be doubts in all their minds when contract times comes around again. Not all will want to go, but you can make it a bit easier to keep those individuals if you are to offer them at least a little bit more. I doubt it would have worked with the likes of Chris Ashton, but Keiron Cunningham proved that some players will stay if the money is right.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, percentage discounts on the cap for home-grown talent can only help us.

Agree totally with Cruncher - there should be some benefit available/cap discount for home-grown talent.

It is also ridiculous that there has beeen no increase in the £1.65 million, or whatever sum it is, in the past few years. It should be raised to £2 million, if not higher, next year to try and alleviate this problem of our young stars being lured away to RU.

Another way to mitigate the effects of the cap would be to reduce the number of players covered from 25 down to 20 or even less, say the highest paid 17.
Agree that there should be an allowance made for home grown talent.
Something needs to be done and quickly.
The NRL are after a massive TV deal from 2013 and are looking to increase their League from 16 to 18 clubs. That will mean they'll need an approx additional 25 players per club which could lead to them signing some of our best players. Also the quality of players arriving here from the NRL will deteriate.
The RFL and SL chairmen do have to take action which will prevent our best players going to other more lucrative places to play their Rugby.

Saints gave contracts to the likes of Gary Wheeler for 60k after a handfull of games to warn off Wigan and a few other teams.

Which is a hefty chunk from the cap for someone relatively young. If that fee didn't count on the cap, or maybe if only half of it counted (in respect of Wheeler's former Saints Academy status), then Saints would be enjoying the fruits of a talent they've nurtured themselves, and still have salary cap space to play with.

I can't see why anyone in the game would object to such a state of affairs.

He is the 2nd most injury prone young player i've ever seen. Behind Kyle Eastmond.

SM is still correct though, Wigan DID try to sign him at the end of 2009.

I know, i've seen you mention it quite a few times.

I just don't see the point in even attempting to sign Eastmond, good player yes. He wouldn't be interested though.

Plus it's all alright haveing the likes of Finch, Tomkins, Eastmond, TL, Deacs in the halves but only 2 out of those 5 can play, my point being whats the point of having a team jam-packed full of superstars if some of these 'superstars' can't get in the side? They'd only leave anyway. A successful team needs the right balance for long-term success IMHO, a blend Man Utd/Arsenal have mastered for the past god knows how many years.

Look at Real Madrid, jam packed full to the rafters with so called superstars and have had very little success. For me, I'm saying there is no point ATM in offering him a deal.

But out of those 5 you mentioned, by the time Eastmond "could" come Deacs will have retired, TL will have played a full season at hooker, Sam will have possibly played a full season at FB leaving Finch as the only recognised halfback, and he's a 6.

Hence why I said ATM there is no point, maybe in a season or 2 time but not now.

I reckon this is a pointless discussion anyway, he'll either stay at Saints or go RU. I can see this signing Kyle Eastmond being the regular end of season thread - much like the Sean Long to Wigan era

Is the sport even in the black? How can you raise the salary cap if nobody is making any money as it is.

I'm not a financial expert, but surely Wigan's turnover must be £4 million in a season - revenue from season ticket sales ( including the £300+ for my and my daughter's tickets!) must be almost £2 million ( I know there are very cheap child tickets in the South Stand, but simple/approximated maths is 10,000 X £200 = £2 million).

All the season's ground receipts would, I have thought, amounted to another £2 million+ and thus a total of £4 million+ - hence my view that Wigan should have a salary cap of £2 million. This would be the 50% figure which, if I remember correctly, was the original way of calculating the cap. A club could spend up to a total of 50% of their income, providing it didn't exceed the stated amount of £1.6 million ( or whatever).

The current system (called communist cap by some on here!) may make it a more even playing field for the likes of Wakefield, Salford, Castleford with their low crowds and turnovers, but it does nothing to encourage clubs to bring in larger crowds and ultimately leads to to the loss of several players to RU where they are offered bigger contracts.

The bottom line is the salary cap in its current format discourages success and has lost some/most of its original intention which was to prevent clubs going bust. Restoring the 50% rule would rectify the current anomaly, where a club in theory could have a turnover of £20million and still only spend £1.65 million on players' wages.