The only thing this fool wants is to have everything his way.

under 21s doesn't bring fans or interest from further a field having a couple of the best player in the world playing in the super league would. And yes those clubs have voted for self interest. Bradford are the only club going bust wouldn't it be nice for them to be able to sell off the marquee player allowance? Who voted for Bradford considering they don't have a chairmen?

What does your opinions of Koukash have to do with this? Fans have been asking for this allowance long before he got involved in the game the only difference is now he is some one who has more reach than anybody on this board.

I'm not going to be convinced just like the majority of super league clubs who voted AGAINST the rule.

Only the bulls? They nearly gone twice, Salford was on the verge, Wakefield went into administration not to mention London, hull KR, Castleford who all had money problems and now we want to let these clubs spend more ?

You say u21s don't bring fans to the sport, I agree, it brought players like Sam Tomkins, Josh Charnley, Liam Farrell, Micky Mac etc at your, which then does bring the fans in.

How you can just stick your nose up so flippantly at scrapping the u21s to save 30k when it's the conveyer belt of the future of rugby league is very disappointing.

Tbh i admire his ambition for rugby league.. we need more people like him to get involved with the sport.

Maybe Bradford are now paying the price of marquee signings 10 years ago that they couldn't really afford. Just a thought ...

Ultimately all clubs are subject to some sort of fan based pressure. Whether these decisions are made as a result of bad management or fan pressure or "ambition" - Bradford and Wigan before them should be clear signs about why it's a bad idea.

If a club enjoys a period of success, and signs a marquee as a result (good management, spending as income increases etc) - if the team falters during the length of that contract - does the club sign another to try and reachieve these goals? Would the fans accept not signing another marquee? What if another signs and the income continues to fall (which is pretty much exactly what happened at Bradford) - there are sometimes not just bad management on show, speculation is as much of a killer. The marquee rule would be pure speculation.

I'm not saying they will stop, I said they would be distracted - I'm sure Wigan as the leader in youth development will argue - being able develop top players takes attention and time and effort from clubs. Distracting them, and redirecting money away from youth development (because the money has to come from somewhere - and the u21s ruling shows clubs have no qualms taking it away from youth development.) is the last thing we should do! I agree increasing the non fed are a bad move (though simplification of the rules should be encouraged - I hope that this is a temporary increase to remove "quota" from the rules)

Bringing back u23s would bolster the playing numbers without requiring the NRL mediocre league to reform.

Your mistaking his ambition for rugby league, it's his ambition of Salford. He doesn't care about rugby league, he just wants instant success because he can afford it.

Tell me one thing he's campaigned for that is rugby leagues interests and not Salfords ?

Exactly!

You can buy success but it's impossible to sustain it With his crazy ideas.

do you not think having a strong and sucessful salford team would be better for superleague? If he can afford it why not buy players that people will pay to come and see.

What's stronger for England (and therefore superleague) is a Salford team full of young British (and preferably mancunian or salfordian) talent capable of competing.

Problem with this argument now is that its breaking down on the usual line. My chairman is right yours is wrong. Players are leaving SL and going to union or the NRL. We have got the brunt of it but we have such an exceptional youth development that we can stay competitive year on year as does Leeds.

Whilst sides like Saints and Wire are just going to swap places depending on who they can get in from the NRL. Where they will get 2-3 good years and then go into transition again. Mcmanus is right that we need a reserve grade etc. But we also need a system that allows a side to sign 1 player and get him off the cap. Which is better Saints with James Graham or Laffranchi. I do not agree with the golden ticket that is just open to abuse and thats not in the interest of the game for me. You got to ask the question if they do not want a marquee player then are those clubs holding back the game.

A SL with Sam Tomkins, James Graham, Billy Slater, Sam Burgess, Manu Vatuevi, Jamal Idris is a better one than the one we have now. At least let the clubs who can afford it do it. After all 2 different sides have won the SL in the last 7 years and 3 clubs in 8 years have won the CC final. RL is not competitive on the field but it is off the field and the current cap system is holding the game back and well as the quality.

And it could be more English if he could have been in the running to get Sam Burgess. But hey lets keep ploding along and watch more players you know the young English guys go to union or NRL because they can get more money.

thats the point i was trying to make about paying to see top players... if he could afford to bring burgees back to superleague then surely its better for the game over here?

Well since Sam left from the NRL to Union there are 2 options - even the richest league in the game can't afford to compete (in which case were so royally screwed over we couldn't compete for his signature anyway) - OR there is in fact more to a decision from the players perspective than money - like internationals and the perceived "level" (for lack of a better word"icon_wink.gif of the team.

Neither choice would of seen Sam at Salford, and I don't believe the marquee rule address' either of those issues.

Having 10 clubs capable of creating, and subsequently holding onto talent does. Or should we keep plodding along letting 3 clubs produce the majority or our international team? (And then wonder why the coach struggles to make them play like a team)

I'd love a strong Salford side (they been saying they got one) but I also wish for a strong London, Wakefield etc

Just because the doc got the cash doesn't make him exempt from playing fair. All clubs can splash the cash but none can afford it, look at Wigan and Widnes in the 80s and early 90s and both teams lucky to still exist.

You are completely missing the point.

IF a club (or owner) has the money then why should he be prevented for spending it. If your next door neighbour can afford and buys a Ferrari, doesn't mean you have to. If you do and bankrupt yourself that's your fault.

If HIS business is making a profit what right have you to tell him what to do with it?

I think you do him a disservice in that he certainly doesn't think only Salford could sign marquee players.

He actually recognises that Wigan v Salford with Wigan with Sam Tomkins in the side and Salford with say Burgess is a bigger draw than what is on offer at present.

Why can't you?

I'm not missing the point mate, I know exactly what your saying but obviously Wigan and Widnes in the 80/90s thought they could afford it and we know what happened there.

Maybe few years down the line it can be reviewed but IMO it's not for me.

Having players coming from 3 teams will continue simply because teams are too lazy and tight to develop them. Developing players cost a fortune. Its been that way because they have been allowed to pick players the best developing systems are forced to let go. I am not disagreeing with you or Mcmanus on that. Not one Wigan fan will we see players go year on year now.

If the Salford owner was in a position to have a real bid at Burgess he would have paid him more than NRL or Bath. It would be then down to the player. But most players go for the money. ITs not about the challenge of the NRL that dam right lying to us. WE never saw this happen in the numbers we are seeing now before. Bur the NRL now is a rich league as is the RFU. Lets be honest you get an offer to double your money from a new employer today. Monday you will hand in your notice and go. Koukash has an ego the size of a bus on him and he is desperate to get that one big name in and he can afford it. He apparently could have matched the NZRU offer to SBW now that tells you something about him. He is an owner in a hurry and that could damage Salford if he gets bored. But odds are the more owners with no ambition holds him back the sooner he will go. And that's a pity as he seems to care about Salford and the game.

Wake up mate, he only wants it as he knows he's got the cash to splash, it's all about him and Salford and not for the good of the game.

Tell me one thing he's campaigned for that's for the good of the game that doesn't involve spending money on players.

If owners could do this i would like that player to have the money transferred to a holding account on the day he signs his contract and then he would get paid normally out of that account. Maybe the RFL holds it and pays it. I do agree its a real risk but the difference is how many marquee players did Widnes and Wigan have then. More than 1 and that for me makes the difference.

Have 1 marquee player but before the contract is signed have proof the owners can pay it and not put the club in danger. This is something that would make it safer for me.

In this is my biggest frustration with it all, signing marquees cost a fortune - why should they be so tight about the future of our game and be so free and easy for the sake of a feel good factor now (that may not even work!)

You picked a poor example, I work for Lego - and it's as awesome as it sounds. But I take your point. Though personally, without making an offer no other club could, burgess wouldn't of signed for Salford. And where the disagreement arises is because I would let 1 go (even as good as burgess), if it made koukash spend what he would of building youth and developing 100 from the region we would of otherwise lost - to me that's a simple numbers game!

But what if he can do both is that not better for the game. Its not just Souths who have lost a player so Has England.

Just 1 point Wigan and Leeds wanted this to happen as well as Salford. Seeing that Leeds and Wigan develop the most and felt it fee-sable to do do then why should we be stopped.

Please tell me you are not serious.



All clubs have the pressure to deliver success. Trying to gamble on it and living beyond their means is just bad management. It doesn't matter where the pressure comes from. Well run clubs will be patient and build for it. Badly run ones won't.



Speculation [iis [/ibad management. All you are describing is bad management.



The only way you are going to guarantee youth development is force clubs to do it. There are numerous ways clubs can spend money on players outside of a marquee signings. I don't think it is an issue that if you sign a marquee player you are going to stop developing youth. The few who do it won't and the ones who don't can't afford a marquee player anyway (I am generalising but it is not far form the truth). As I said if you want increased youth development you need to force clubs to do it irrespective or marquee signings or not.



I think scrapping the U21's was a poor idea but I doubt an U23 league would stop clubs looking overseas if they can due to a reduced quota. That (and the panic buying consequences of P&R) is a bigger threat to home grown talent than a marquee signing IMO.

This is nonsense. He has recognised that the [igame[/i would benefit from keeping hold of the likes of Sam Tomkins and signing top class players.

Yes he can do it but if you are slagging him off because he can, why aren't you slagging off the chairmen of other clubs who can't and never look like being able to?

What have the likes of Wakefield done to advance the game since SL started?

Is 1 club being able to do both worth the damage done to the sport? As good as the situation of Wigan during the 80s must of felt, the lack of competition did more damage than good!

Realistically for the new structure to work (which as disastrous as it would be if it didn't (as discussed at length) would be fantastic for the sport if it did) we need 10 teams capable of spending as much as needed to be required - imo we've just about reached that level and a Sam burgess isn't worth risking the whole competition.