French and Field are worth marquee money at FB. There's been nothing to say they'd be worth that playing at 6. Surely it's a better option to get an out and out HB and pay them?



Again, like Saints, why would they have kept Coote and paid Welsby FB money to sit on the wing. It makes no sense.

Lomax/Roby/Walmsley all joined low and home grown rarely are top earners.



Coote was released for the very reason that we could not afford his wage request.

And as pointed out, Wire don't have a good squad because they can't afford one. Few injuries and they're playing props on the wing.

Not sure what you mean by "Can't afford one".



They are as rich as any club in the UK, I don't think the money is the issue, just the injuries and perhaps type of player in positions they have brought in, Inglis probably the first problem issue.

Give over mate. You're telling me that you have Lomax and, particularly, Walmsley on low money? Roby would have been a top earner for most of his career too. Coote came on decent money. You couldn't afford his increased wage demand this year. You still had to pay him good money last year along with all the others.



Leeds stars all played for peanuts too, don't you know.

But you can't equate the money Warrington are paying their first 17 to an increase for French and Field. The increase for those is not all extras .. we're already paying a good proportion of what we'd need to pay to keep them. It would be covered several times over by Tommy and Zak's wages.



And that's before we get into the difference in Academies when discussing squad depth

I didn't say they were on low money, I said they started on low money, and usually, home grown players never end up earning top salaries.



I would say that Saints salaries were pretty flat across the main 13, unlike some teams where they wil have some high earners and low earners.

True. But there's nothing to say it wouldn't either. Why look on the negative? If Field works out at 6 or French on the wing it would be a no brainer.



Let's at least see first.

They still have the same salary cap as everyone else.



They spend most of that on the first choice 17 meaning they have little to spend elsewhere.

Hey, they are marquee props tho so it's ok.

exactly my point..... which team wouldnt spend most of the their money on their first choice 17?

And there are dispensations for home grown players available

Guess the definition is what we class as "most". Do other teams send 90% and Wire spend 99%?

I very much doubt that mate. You'll have high earners (Lomax, Walmsley, Makinson etc) and low earners (Amor, LMS and some of the younger players).



A flat pay structure is the same argument Leeds used and it was garbage then too. Market forces don't allow it.

Yes, should have worded it better. They have all of these superstars in their first 17, leaving little for other areas of the squad.



The likes of Wigan, Saints and Leeds have players considered "ordinary" (how many of our fans ahve criticised signings like Thornley, Bibby, Miski etc) or young academy lads on low wages meaning they can have bigger squads.

They clearly do, it is not exactly hard to work out which teams are paying up/down wages and which are flat.

Mate, there is no such thing as a flat wage structure in any jobs market. That's simple economics. Saints will be paying around market value for all their star players. You can choose to believe different if you like but please don't ask me to.

THere is across your first 13.



In the sport enough of us know the average price of each player, it isn't rocket science. lool

Sorry but there isn't. Are you saying Lomax and Dodd, for example, are on the same money? Believe what you want mate, but it's utter garbage.

no, but Dodd isn't really in the starting the 13, not long term, he is a new entry remember.



It is highly likely Roby took a pay cut to remain for another go around as well.



We also shipped out a few overseas players, possibly replacing them with lower salaries.

So not a flat wage structure then.



Are you saying Dodd is not in either your starting 13 or long term btw?

a flat wage structure isnt everyone on the same wage lol.



Dodd is new to the starting line up, he is in transition.

Hence the word 'structure'. So you're saying you have high earners and low earners. What exactly is your point then? How exactly does it differ from here at Wigan for example? Do you think when the club negotiates with, say, Walmsley that they pick a salary out if the air depending on which way the wind is blowing or do the they know roughly what he's worth on the open market and expect to pay something in that vicinity?



Similarly, when Walmsley's agent goes into those same negotiations do you think he knows his worth on the open market or not? Do you then think he then goes in thinking "I need to get the worst possible deal here" or is he attempting to get the best deal based on the knowledge of that market worth?



Simple answer really unless you think Saints are somehow a special case that is exempt from the usual job market economics.

No, all clubs have senior players, and regular players and transition players academy/squad/first team.



It is easy to mark players to each category and salary them.



Then pick out the player who are part of the marquee system etc from the RFL Salary Cap guidelines.



Then you will pretty closely be able to see who earns what.



No team in the SL is over the cap as laid out, a few players will be high earner, but the vast majority will earn around the same amount in SL, probably £30K to £60K, propbably accounts for 60% of all players.



I am sure you can have a guesstimate at the rest.



Flat wage structure isn't the same wage, it is a structure that pays the majority of player around the same amount, say £30k to £60k.

I understand what a wage structure is but you're suggesting that Saints are somehow not tied to the market value of players, which is just nonsense. In fact, I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.



In the original post I said that Saints (and others) manage to have several high earners in the squad. You came on and listed reasons you thought they weren't paying them their market worth. I said that wasn't the case and they would be.



Do you now accept that Saints are no different than anyone else and will need to pay players their worth? If so, that's fine, we agree.