You said that academy prospects only work for Wigan and Saints which implies that it doesn’t work for any other team. Hence my comment that it is for the others to get their house in order.wgwr1999 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:07 pmWhat are you on about? That's not even remotely close to what I said?Charriots Offiah wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:39 pmIt’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..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.
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.
Going on to your next point, players are only interested in money. Otherwise why has Bateman given up marquee money to play for Wests Tigers?