Leicester's signing strategy is found wanting imo. They eat up too much of their salary by signing moderate-talent players from the bottom-end of the top divisions who only play second-fiddle to their international players and then can't afford to keep hold of all of their prized assets or give regular game time to their young stars. If they cite the salary cap as an issue for losing players like Parling, you have to wonder why they have 4 scrum-halves on the cards for example. My biggest criticism of Leicester is that they seem to have an aversion to signing from outside the top leagues. Teams can find gems in the Championship and for what I'm guessing is a lot less money than their Premiership counterparts. (Championship players are mostly happy for the exposure to a higher standard of rugby, in front of bigger crowds and a chance to kick on with their career --- money is less of an object to them.)
Fairly sure Goneva came from the French second division. Slater came from Nottingham. Kitchener was a Championship sub when brought in. They'll look there, and they're certainly not opposed to polishing a rough diamond. Their signing strategy isn't perfect, but its not as bad as people make out. And as for signing moderate talent players from lesser Premiership clubs, some would have called that a good description of Parling himself.
Nah, I think that the salary cap is the best thing that can happen for the development of youth.
1. It avoids teams loading their squad with foreign stars which stops development. (Look at the Sarries: Jamie George is one of the best prospects at hooker for England, and is stuck doing nothing behind Smit and Brits - imagine if the Sarries could afford to do this in every position.)
2. It avoids the top teams loading their squad with other teams' prospects and then aren't given an extended chance to prove themselves. We see this in football - all the youth snapped up by the biggest teams and then get discarded after a lack of progress when they're not given enough time in a huge squad. (Look at what's happened at the Tigers: Micky Young brought in as a top prospect and then not getting the game time to go further. Or the Twelvetrees saga. Imagine if this could be done across the squad.)
Yup, I can see the positives.
But foreign stars can aid development as well as hinder it. Ulster would not be where they are without them. And competition is a good thing. You see Young not getting the gametime to go further, I see Harrison getting the motivation to kick on. Ditto Twelvetrees and Allen. It pushes players. Yes, it causes casualties. But those players can always go away and start again and prove themselves, like Twelvetrees.
Fact is, we still have huge squads in which young players get lost, we still have the top clubs being able to lure in other teams' prospects thanks to a better chance of honours and medals if things go well, and we've still got reams of foreign players bunging things up - just they're not as good, so our young stars don't get to learn from the best, and they don't get the confidence boost of performing well in the HEC as they're in weaker teams, or the educational benefits of playing at the sharp end of the knockout rounds. We also lose more players than we should to France, cutting the potential international pool, and the standard of the league in which our youngsters play.
As such, I see strong benefits in opening the cap up a little more, and allowing those who can to push the standard of the league higher.
). But Slater and Kitchener happened a while ago now.
