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: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:15 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:26 pm
coxy2912 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:47 pm For me, and this is just speculation, if we do sign Thompson, there is no way we would be keeping Bevan aswell. There just wouldn't be enough room in the salary cap, as I see it. Personally, I'd rather French, if it was one or the other.

Surely no one can see us keeping French, signing Thompson and having Bateman on his Marquee contract?
The way I understand it, the marquee system is more about getting as much salary cap off the books as possible.

If our marquee players are Bateman & Thompson, their combined cap hit would be £150,000.
If Bevan is one of the marquee players, his salary cap would be £150,000 ALONE.

It's just salary cap gymnastics & with our academy production, the quota is all that's limiting us it seems.
Batty and Thompson would count as £150k each.
I could have sworn the homegrown marquee rule was for all English players in a bid to retain top English talent in Super League? Hence the £75,000 cap for them & £150,000 for everyone else?
nathan_rugby
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by nathan_rugby »

Marquee Player – Each Super League and Championship Club is permitted to have two Marquee Players whose Salary Cap value is limited to £150,000 (or £75,000 if Club Trained);

Club trained = basically been at the club for 3 full seasons before they are 21 I think.
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."
wgwr1999
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:15 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by wgwr1999 »

Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
CobraCraig
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:33 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by CobraCraig »

wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:15 pm Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
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.
wgwr1999
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:15 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by wgwr1999 »

CobraCraig wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:36 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:15 pm Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
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.
fozzieskem
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by fozzieskem »

CobraCraig wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:36 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:15 pm Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
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.
That’s as I understood it..150k for a player brought in,75k for home grown talent.
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 2559
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by Charriots Offiah »

CobraCraig wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:36 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:15 pm Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
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.
I agree it is a good law. More laws need introducing to ensure more players are retained in SL as well as being an incentive for teams to invest in juniors. It is the only way SL is going to become more competitive, raise standards and challenge our friends down under. I would also introduce quotas were teams need to have x home grown players in their 21 man match day squad, plus y British/European players. The non-fed players would then become less relevant.
nathan_rugby
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by nathan_rugby »

wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:10 pm
CobraCraig wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:36 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:15 pm Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
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.
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.
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."
wgwr1999
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:15 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by wgwr1999 »

nathan_rugby wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:02 am
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.
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.
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 2559
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Luke Thompson

Post by Charriots Offiah »

wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:10 pm
CobraCraig wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:36 pm
wgwr1999 wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:15 pm Oh well they've changed that since the original discussion/plans. How stupid. What is the incentive from that rule?

Ah well, point still stands but to a lesser degree - I don't think we need to worry about the salary cap, just be mindful that it might cost some squad players to be replaced by academy lads.
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..
Post Reply