So many posters in this thread who don't understand what the salary cap is for. The salary cap is to stop clubs from hoarding quality players and buying out the competition a la Man City, not to prevent teams from signing good players. For the Hull fan whinging, your club can also sign a marquee player, the only difference is that your chairman is unambitious.

No it's not. It's for protecting the clubs from their owners chasing short term gain and jeopardising the long term stability of the club.

The long service exemption is 50k. The ets exemption is 100k. That's a 150k. Of 1.975m (1.825+150k) that is about 7.6%



It's also not in the rules for next year. It's specified to apply to 2012,2013,2014 and 2015

What would be interesting would be people's opinions about how their club would use this.



I have no doubt Saints will use it on Roby and free up some cap room to spend on the squad. I can't see us chasing superstars with it.

This thread is nothing to do with the long service rule Smokey, so you are probably breaching the AUP by mentioning it. Now lets get this thread back on track eh

and Smokey can go and discuss the long service rule elsewhere

That's not what people are complaining about in this thread though, they are complaining about it making the competition uneven.

SC didn't make it even anyway as some clubs can't pay up to the cap.



If we don't have a marquee player rule, the best players of the lower clubs will still sign for the top clubs.



A marquee player rule gives SL some ammo to try and keep their best players and attract others. Some will still inevitably go to the NRL.



But it's about time SL had some ambition and stop the lower clubs holding the league back in this country while they catch up.

Unambitious? Why because he voted against the rule putting faith in a salary cap and academies. Our owner has invested a hell of a lot in training facilities for the first team and younger players. Something our last owners wouldn't put a penny too!



Give it a couple of years and people will be moaning when it goes t!ts up and the status quo hasn't changed and Salford are still attracting no more than 3500 fans

It doesn't affect spending on any of those things. You're acting as though the salary cap has been removed altogether. We're talking about an exemption for one player, with huge incentives for that player to be home-grown by the club. Your club could've used the rule to keep Tom Briscoe or Tom Lineham. There's no possible downside to this.

Another death nail in the "development" system of the game in this country. Wasting money on 1 or 2 players whilst the HARD WORK of training and developing players is left to hard working volunteers with little or no help from the "senior" clubs.

Well that's what everyone seems to want so the game carries on.

It's sad to see the slow demise of a game in this country which with the right thinking could have taken the country by storm. The opportunities have been there but then blinkers always seem to have the RL fashion of choice.

Perhaps the death of the 'development system' in this country is necessary. Its hardly like its doing brilliantly.



Seen a it about people arguing that 'clubs can't afford an u21's or reserves but can afford this' but why are we assuming those are good things to spend our money on?



It seems crazy to me that we have on one hand worries about the gap between SL and the lower leagues, and on the other a game struggling for visibility and coverage, yet people are arguing we shouldnt bring in big names until we fund a competition that takes the best young players from the lower leagues to put them in to a competition people wont watch.