Which is something the salary cap is partly responsible for.thegimble posted:
Question is has the cap achieved in making the GB side better.
Answer No.
The cap is not the issue for me but Kolpak players are. Too many second rate players come over and do nothing and take a place of a possible British player to develop.
Barrett's and Lyon's of the world SL needs we do not need the over the hill player whos here for pension money.
In this era of tightly restricted spending (and, of course, relegation), SL clubs can't risk waiting for exciting youngsters to come of age. Wait for that to happen, and, if it happens at all, you could end up at the bottom of the table or even dropped into NL1 before you see these kids come good. Clubs want as much success as they can get in the present, hence they sign up ready-made players who've already experienced big-time action - invariably these are Kolpacs. The next problem is that, to be able to afford these Kolpacs' wages, you must unload some or all of your youngsters, or better still - taking the Wakey, Wire, Hudds, Quins etc route - don't develop any at all.
The net-result: there are less and less home-grown players, let alone stars, in the British game (and anyone who disagrees with that needs only to look at the last tour-party we sent out; what a joke!).
The solution: waive the salary cap altogether for players who are under 21. That's what the Aussies do apparently, though I'd go further. I'd waive it for any player you sign from your own Academy ... for the rest of his career, even if he turns into a high-priced superstar. That would give all our clubs a real impetus to start developing their own talent, and I can't see how it would unfairly advantage or disadvantage anyone.