Luke Thompson

Got a hot rumour from a source inside the club, or just something you heard down the pub? Then what are you waiting for, post it on The Rumour Mill.
wgwr1999
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:15 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by wgwr1999 »

Charriots Offiah wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:39 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:10 pm
CobraCraig wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:36 pm

It’s always been home grown £75k and quite obviously an incentive to keep hold and pay your own players marquee wages. And imo it’s a good law.
"Home Grown" shouldn't just be academy prospects though because that only works for Wigan & Saints.

For example, if Huddersfield offered Pryce the marquee but Newcastle are giving the same or even less money, where is the incentive to stay at a "mid tier" team? Whereas let's say Wigan offered him the marquee money & the chance to challenge for major honours, he is more likely to stay.

The law is good in theory but poor in execution imo -- bit like the entire salary cap to be honest.
It’s up to the other clubs to invest and produce young players rather than spending money on has been’s. We need to raise the bar not lower it..
What are you on about? That's not even remotely close to what I said?

You can't "produce" young players like KPP & Pryce when they leave at the ripe old age of 20 because the teams who CAN offer domestic success & more often than not a better route to international rugby aren't incentivised by the RFL who incorporate a comedically low salary cap compared to the NRL. My point is that if the RFL actually wanted to keep English/British talent in the Super League, the "club trained" rule should become the "home grown" rule that we see in the Premier League, for example. This obviously also goes for French players.

But this seems to be a matter of misunderstood words on a forum about the potential signing of Luke Thompson so let's get back on topic.
nathan_rugby
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by nathan_rugby »

wgwr1999 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:23 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:02 am
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:10 pm

"Home Grown" shouldn't just be academy prospects though because that only works for Wigan & Saints.

For example, if Huddersfield offered Pryce the marquee but Newcastle are giving the same or even less money, where is the incentive to stay at a "mid tier" team? Whereas let's say Wigan offered him the marquee money & the chance to challenge for major honours, he is more likely to stay.

The law is good in theory but poor in execution imo -- bit like the entire salary cap to be honest.
The Pryce scenario at Huddersfield isn’t anything to do with marquee. Huddersfield could pay him what they want and only £75k would count on the cap.

It’s a seperate and unrelated point that he may prefer to go to Newcastle on less money.
Yes, I know... that is literally what I just said. The example was used to show that it's still not enough to entice players to stay in the SL instead of jumping over to the NRL at the very first opportunity for a player so unproven when the clubs who can almost guarantee trophies can only give the "club trained" marquee to their own academy graduates.

Essentially, with the current rule, any young "stars" from academies outside of Wigan & Saints have no reason to stay.
That’s not an issue with the marquee rule or salary cap though is it?

In your hypothetical situation you said Huddersfield may offer more than Newcastle…
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by Charriots Offiah »

wgwr1999 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:07 pm
Charriots Offiah wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:39 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:10 pm

"Home Grown" shouldn't just be academy prospects though because that only works for Wigan & Saints.

For example, if Huddersfield offered Pryce the marquee but Newcastle are giving the same or even less money, where is the incentive to stay at a "mid tier" team? Whereas let's say Wigan offered him the marquee money & the chance to challenge for major honours, he is more likely to stay.

The law is good in theory but poor in execution imo -- bit like the entire salary cap to be honest.
It’s up to the other clubs to invest and produce young players rather than spending money on has been’s. We need to raise the bar not lower it..
What are you on about? That's not even remotely close to what I said?

You can't "produce" young players like KPP & Pryce when they leave at the ripe old age of 20 because the teams who CAN offer domestic success & more often than not a better route to international rugby aren't incentivised by the RFL who incorporate a comedically low salary cap compared to the NRL. My point is that if the RFL actually wanted to keep English/British talent in the Super League, the "club trained" rule should become the "home grown" rule that we see in the Premier League, for example. This obviously also goes for French players.

But this seems to be a matter of misunderstood words on a forum about the potential signing of Luke Thompson so let's get back on topic.
You did, and I quote ‘ ‘Home Grown’ shouldn’t just be academy prospects though because that only works for Wigan and Saints’.

If that is not what you meant you should have explained yourself more clearly!
CobraCraig
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:33 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by CobraCraig »

wgwr1999 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:23 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:02 am
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:10 pm

"Home Grown" shouldn't just be academy prospects though because that only works for Wigan & Saints.

For example, if Huddersfield offered Pryce the marquee but Newcastle are giving the same or even less money, where is the incentive to stay at a "mid tier" team? Whereas let's say Wigan offered him the marquee money & the chance to challenge for major honours, he is more likely to stay.

The law is good in theory but poor in execution imo -- bit like the entire salary cap to be honest.
The Pryce scenario at Huddersfield isn’t anything to do with marquee. Huddersfield could pay him what they want and only £75k would count on the cap.

It’s a seperate and unrelated point that he may prefer to go to Newcastle on less money.
Yes, I know... that is literally what I just said. The example was used to show that it's still not enough to entice players to stay in the SL instead of jumping over to the NRL at the very first opportunity for a player so unproven when the clubs who can almost guarantee trophies can only give the "club trained" marquee to their own academy graduates.

Essentially, with the current rule, any young "stars" from academies outside of Wigan & Saints have no reason to stay.
Why do players outside of Wigan and Saints academy have no reason to stay? That makes no sense. Also to completely contradict that Wigan have had more players go to the NRL in recent years than any other club.
The marquee rule was partly set up to help keep homegrown players, even though I don’t think it matters with Warringtons accountants I think it’s good that Williams counts £150k and not £75k against their cap, it promotes clubs to bring through superstars rather than just poach them.
Post Reply