Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Salary Cap


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#61 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:19 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 05:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Scrap the salary cap. It's a restraint on investment and is an excuse for the less inventive and progressive clubs to hang off the coat tails of the better clubs.


Releasing Moran. McManus, Lenegan, Hudgell, you name them, to """""invest""""" more in Superleague in reality means inviting them to place unrestrained bids on the best players.

And thus wage inflation is created. A player Superleague got for 100,000 a season suddenly is getting 200,000 a season.

How does a business invest money in your mind Steve - jusy doubles peoples wages??

Bitofaboogie gets it so we should all get it.

#62 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:37 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 19 2010, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Releasing Moran. McManus, Lenegan, Hudgell, you name them, to """""invest""""" more in Superleague in reality means inviting them to place unrestrained bids on the best players.

And thus wage inflation is created. A player Superleague got for 100,000 a season suddenly is getting 200,000 a season.

How does a business invest money in your mind Steve - jusy doubles peoples wages??

Bitofaboogie gets it so we should all get it.


Why should any investor be restricted by anything other than their own financial resources?

#63 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:49 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why should any investor be restricted by anything other than their own financial resources?


Because the investor may decide to create wage inflation within the organisation.

The organisation is a business called Superleague whose main investor is SKY and the business is a collective of 14 clubs with a series of policy aims, these include......

1. Nice shiney grounds that attract people to pay gate money

2. The development of young players to play the game and become pro's

3. Quality marketing departments who add value to the business

4. An even competition such that all clubs pay the same wages and Sky have good games to show

Investors are no good whatsoever to a business unless they invest in the policies and business aims of the business itself.

If I have a retail chain of shops and my "investor" decides to build a 200 Million office headquarters I am going to be peed off that not a penny of that benefitted the business.

The problem in RL investment is people going off an an investment tangent can actually ruin the business.

lets say I am an arab sheikh and on scrapping the salary cap I come in and buy the best 280 players available to SL and pay them all 1M each because I """""""""Have the financial resources"""""""

Then you can bet your bottom dollar I will win everything the british game has to ofer by a million miles.

In front of empty stands.

With the SKY contract cancelled

And the rest of the sporting world splitting their sides..............

#64 Bitofaboogie

Bitofaboogie
  • Coach
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:09 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 19 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is that what you are suggesting then?

How do Quins make a profit? Probably by fielding a semi pro side of Londoners.

How would HKR make a profit given they lose 1M a year? Reduce their player budget by 1Million.

Then what are the scores for the Wigan.v.Quins matches?? 60 to 70 points to nil.

Or the scores for Wigan.v.HKR 40 to 50 points to nil?

Does a director putting in millions count as "profit"?

In any event how would dropping costs down until all clubs make a profit make the game secure.

Wouldn't the attendances at the lower clubs drop like a stone as their teams get battered, and the attendances at the top clubs drop as the fans get bored??

The only winner here seems to be Wigan where they can make a profit off their attandances and have a sugar daddy too.

Your suggestion would seem to heavily favour Wigan, who is it you support by the way?

How do you arrive at that conclusion Parky? Wigan have just declared a loss I think (was it 27,000.00?) but Leeds have just declared a massive profit of 3,000,000.00+. Surely this would benefit Leeds and not Wigan?


#65 Bitofaboogie

Bitofaboogie
  • Coach
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:16 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 19 2010, 09:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1. Of course it works - the top clubs on the whole are reigned in, of course it's manageable - clubs are caught and punished. If you want to argue it's not a perfect system then suggest what is?

2. You are right and for me we should ask SKY what they want if they are the paymasters. If they want an even competition then the salary cap stays and the SKY money could also be distributed unevenly. However maybe SKY back the cap behind closed doors so it could be an academic argument.

3. Like the expansion clubs crowds and home grown players they will always be hit over the head for the lack of them in their formative years by supporters of clubs who have been around 130 years. Similarly the cap has been applied to a series of clubs only a few of whom can stand on their own two feet financially, clubs who are fledglings, clubs who are in bad grounds and clubs who don't have sugar daddies etc.

Easy to condemn a system that can't yet work across the board because of other problems.

4. So what's the system you advocate??? If you want to bad mouth and remove a system suggest something? All down the years you have just left the argument as "The cap should be abolished" even Boogie has shifted to admitting wage inflation would be the result and a small clique of clubs playing out a league within a league.

We have that now, but the cap is there to help reign it in and in time when other clubs get on their feet we will see a more even competition.

The development of SL as a league of 14 big clubs all on full cap and all bringing through good juniors of equal quality isn't a 10 year thing and maybe isn't a 20 year thing.

Excuse me but Boogie hasn't shifted to admitting anything - I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never supported the cap and I never will support the cap. Rugby League cannot prosper in a free market context whilst it continues to behave like soviet communists. All my arguments against the cap have been ridiculed in the past but they will all now be trotted out by the self-interested to justify why it should now go. My interest lies in why this dramatic change-of-heart should occur at this point in time.


#66 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,829 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:28 PM

QUOTE (Bitofaboogie @ Sep 19 2010, 09:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Excuse me but Boogie hasn't shifted to admitting anything - I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never supported the cap and I never will support the cap. Rugby League cannot prosper in a free market context whilst it continues to behave like soviet communists. All my arguments against the cap have been ridiculed in the past but they will all now be trotted out by the self-interested to justify why it should now go. My interest lies in why this dramatic change-of-heart should occur at this point in time.


Didn't Wigan almost go bust in the pre-cap days, only to be saved by DW?

Wigan's dominance almost killed RL pre-cap and almost killed themselves. Remving the cap would be the death knell

#67 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,848 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:46 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Sep 19 2010, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Didn't Wigan almost go bust in the pre-cap days, only to be saved by DW?

Wigan's dominance almost killed RL pre-cap and almost killed themselves. Remving the cap would be the death knell



Jesus, I find myself agreeing with Lobbygobbler!!!
ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif





biggrin.gif

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#68 Bitofaboogie

Bitofaboogie
  • Coach
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Sep 19 2010, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Didn't Wigan almost go bust in the pre-cap days, only to be saved by DW?

Wigan's dominance almost killed RL pre-cap and almost killed themselves. Remving the cap would be the death knell

No, actually.

rolleyes.gif

#69 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 09:55 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 19 2010, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because the investor may decide to create wage inflation within the organisation.

The organisation is a business called Superleague whose main investor is SKY and the business is a collective of 14 clubs with a series of policy aims, these include......

1. Nice shiney grounds that attract people to pay gate money

2. The development of young players to play the game and become pro's

3. Quality marketing departments who add value to the business

4. An even competition such that all clubs pay the same wages and Sky have good games to show

Investors are no good whatsoever to a business unless they invest in the policies and business aims of the business itself.

If I have a retail chain of shops and my "investor" decides to build a 200 Million office headquarters I am going to be peed off that not a penny of that benefitted the business.

The problem in RL investment is people going off an an investment tangent can actually ruin the business.

lets say I am an arab sheikh and on scrapping the salary cap I come in and buy the best 280 players available to SL and pay them all 1M each because I """""""""Have the financial resources"""""""

Then you can bet your bottom dollar I will win everything the british game has to ofer by a million miles.

In front of empty stands.

With the SKY contract cancelled

And the rest of the sporting world splitting their sides..............


How has the salary cap forced any club to build a new ground?
How would having no salary cap allow clubs to have squads bigger than 25?
How would having no salary cap stop a club marketing itself? Marketing is not driven by anything other than a desire to increase revenue and brand awareness. e.g Bradford Bulls.
How does not having a salary cap prevent player development?
It is impossible to create an even competition.
How many sides outside the top 3 have won the Grand Final?
A debt cap would prevent your scenario of going off on an investment tangent and ruining the business?

#70 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 06:58 AM

QUOTE (Bitofaboogie @ Sep 19 2010, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How do you arrive at that conclusion Parky? Wigan have just declared a loss I think (was it 27,000.00?) but Leeds have just declared a massive profit of 3,000,000.00+. Surely this would benefit Leeds and not Wigan?


Just on the simple basis that if you have big crowds and rich backers and are therefore allowed to spend more....

And if you don't have big crowds and no rich backers you cannot spend more......

Simply leaves the big clubs to get bigger and the small ones to get smaller.

Father Ted talked about profit but did not say wether director "contrubutions" would lead to a profit.

On the figures you quote I suspect Leeds includes the cricket, but wether it does or not the principle remains that on Father Teds idea Leeds could buy up extra players and the likes of Cas and Wakey could not as they are skint.

So just on the microcosm of round here you'd have a Leeds club that was standout with Cas and Wakey essentially acting as nurseries for Leeds getting tonked every fixture.

I assumed on Wigans great crowds and Lenegans riches, If there was a rule saying you could spend more if you made a profit, Wigan would be able to turn a profit, but again it depends on wether Ted was counting directors loans as income.

If he wasn't and even Wigan don't make a profit, then the idea is a non starter anyway.

#71 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:02 AM

QUOTE (Bitofaboogie @ Sep 19 2010, 09:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Excuse me but Boogie hasn't shifted to admitting anything - I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never supported the cap and I never will support the cap. Rugby League cannot prosper in a free market context whilst it continues to behave like soviet communists. All my arguments against the cap have been ridiculed in the past but they will all now be trotted out by the self-interested to justify why it should now go. My interest lies in why this dramatic change-of-heart should occur at this point in time.


ohmy.gif sorry!

Can you set out how RL will prosper in a free market context.

If you can explain it, maybe I will go with you on it.




#72 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:19 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 19 2010, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1. How has the salary cap forced any club to build a new ground?

2. How would having no salary cap allow clubs to have squads bigger than 25?

3. How would having no salary cap stop a club marketing itself?

4. Marketing is not driven by anything other than a desire to increase revenue and brand awareness. e.g Bradford Bulls.

5. How does not having a salary cap prevent player development?

6. It is impossible to create an even competition.

7. How many sides outside the top 3 have won the Grand Final?

8. A debt cap would prevent your scenario of going off on an investment tangent and ruining the business?


1. It hasn't.
2. it wouldn't but the richest clubs would have the best 25
3. Wage inflation takes away money for marketing unless your director has a bottomless wallet
4. Marketing is indeed a business tool
5. It doesn't but when you can buy anyone you like who needs a youth set up ala Warrington
6. In theory you are right but the cap has created a much more even competition.
7. Not many but the ones that have have been succesful in youth development - only very recently has the penny dropped with the rest - and some will catch up in time.
8. I'd like you to extend your idea of a debt cap.

What I feel is that if you move to a "free market" again then those clubs with money and rich backers will fly out far in front of the rest, and forever more buy up the best players and polarise the Superleague.

That's how Wigan got their success so there's a historical model. This is how the premier league has a league within a league - rich men unfettered.

If RL clubs at the top can get their wallets out then you are looking at a league of blowout scores with the top clubs winning all the time. Will that increase their crowds? Wigan, Hull, Leeds, Saints have big crowds and win a lot already so I don't see it creating more interest do you?

And where do the clubs below them go?? They would develop players for the rich clubs to pick them off for their mini league - so would they bother??

What would the fans of the also rans do - stay at home???

It is actually easy to argue the cap is not working. LMS goes to Saints anyway and Saints are always in the final.

But that is for OTHER reasons. The cap will work once all clubs have good junior development and can attract gates (and have the inconme topped up by directors) that means they can afford full cap.

It will also work when the best imports don't shun the bottom clubs to be at clubs winning medals.

Try to pick my argument as much as you can, but at some point Ted, Boogie and you should surely extend your point to how it would actually work in practice.

Ted says a profit system will work - but doesn't explain it
Boogie says a free market will work but doesn't explain it.

Please explain the debt cap and taking the clubs current financial state as a basis can you extend how Superleague would move forward under your Debt Cap idea??


#73 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:29 AM

the simple way to look at any salary cap debate is to exclude those fans whose clubs are penalized by it

so thats all the wigan and leeds fans then, and many wire and saints fans too.

its similar to getting an opinion on franchising from a fan of a club outside SL.

taking out club bias and then determining whats good for the game

#74 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:37 AM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 20 2010, 08:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1. It hasn't.
2. it wouldn't but the richest clubs would have the best 25
3. Wage inflation takes away money for marketing unless your director has a bottomless wallet
4. Marketing is indeed a business tool
5. It doesn't but when you can buy anyone you like who needs a youth set up ala Warrington
6. In theory you are right but the cap has created a much more even competition.
7. Not many but the ones that have have been succesful in youth development - only very recently has the penny dropped with the rest - and some will catch up in time.
8. I'd like you to extend your idea of a debt cap.

What I feel is that if you move to a "free market" again then those clubs with money and rich backers will fly out far in front of the rest, and forever more buy up the best players and polarise the Superleague.

That's how Wigan got their success so there's a historical model. This is how the premier league has a league within a league - rich men unfettered.

If RL clubs at the top can get their wallets out then you are looking at a league of blowout scores with the top clubs winning all the time. Will that increase their crowds? Wigan, Hull, Leeds, Saints have big crowds and win a lot already so I don't see it creating more interest do you?

And where do the clubs below them go?? They would develop players for the rich clubs to pick them off for their mini league - so would they bother??

What would the fans of the also rans do - stay at home???

It is actually easy to argue the cap is not working. LMS goes to Saints anyway and Saints are always in the final.

But that is for OTHER reasons. The cap will work once all clubs have good junior development and can attract gates (and have the inconme topped up by directors) that means they can afford full cap.

It will also work when the best imports don't shun the bottom clubs to be at clubs winning medals.

Try to pick my argument as much as you can, but at some point Ted, Boogie and you should surely extend your point to how it would actually work in practice.

Ted says a profit system will work - but doesn't explain it
Boogie says a free market will work but doesn't explain it.

Please explain the debt cap and taking the clubs current financial state as a basis can you extend how Superleague would move forward under your Debt Cap idea??


Those clubs that are able to spend the maximum cap already attract the best players, so how does that differ from a free market?

Where does wage inflation enter the equation? Super League created wage inflation of extreme proportions when the first News money came into the game. Are you saying that the men behind the top clubs are so incapable of realising that e.g crowds, hospitality and merchandise are so important that they would fail to continue to tap these vital revenue streams and simply spend their own money?

The production lines at Saints, Leeds, Wigan etc are there because of the astute management of the clubs and the existence of strong amateur leagues in those areas, plus an ability to attract kids from elsewhere.

How is the competition more even? What indicators are you using to assert this assumption? The Ceteris Paribus rule does not apply simply because all other things are not and never will be equal.

You say if you have money you are in, but it doesn't actually work like that.

The ability of a club to compete should not be determined by preventing investment, it should be determined by an ability to meet it's obligations. If you have got money you are in, as you say.Scrap the cap, it's there in name only anyway.



#75 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,581 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:32 AM

What is the aim of the cap?Is it to stop clubs struggling?Its not stopped Quins-Crusaders,Wakey,
Fax etc having major problems.Hull k.r are alleged to have 3million in loans.Bradford are weak financially.So for me its not very good system.

Has it evened the comp out?No as the same teams are in the grand final as before.Wigan,Saints and Leeds with Bradford having gone. The better players are still going to the big clubs like Shenton,Pitts etc.

The likes of Warrington,Bradford,Huddersfield,Salford are raiding the youth ranks in Halifax,Leigh,Cumbria,Heavy Woolen area as the quality and quantity in in these areas is way better than in the towns with the SL club. This makes life harder for championship clubs.So what is the caps aim exactly?For me its done very little for clubs financially or on the field.SL clubs have not invested much in to improving local talent.They would rather raid other service areas for the academy.

#76 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,848 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 11:07 AM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Sep 20 2010, 11:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bradford are weak financially...

the same teams are in the grand final as before.Wigan,Saints and Leeds with Bradford having gone.



Thanks for Shad Royston. Let us know when you get anyone else who's any good.

cool.gif

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#77 Rex Turp

Rex Turp
  • Coach
  • 124 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:39 PM

The one problem for me is that it isnt index linked or linked to a percentage of your income (as leeds's crowds have gone down over the last couple of years and their cap would be lower now.) Over the years that the cap's been in place its never risen so in theory they havent given anyone a pay rise !
Index link with extra's for homegrown players is the way i would go.

#78 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:49 PM

QUOTE (Rex Turp @ Sep 20 2010, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The one problem for me is that it isnt index linked or linked to a percentage of your income (as leeds's crowds have gone down over the last couple of years and their cap would be lower now.) Over the years that the cap's been in place its never risen so in theory they havent given anyone a pay rise !
Index link with extra's for homegrown players is the way i would go.


Thus giving the Leeds, Saints, Wigans, Hulls etc a massive boost and booting Crusaders and Quins in the proverbials.

Good for RL/Superleague - I think not???


#79 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,721 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:21 PM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Sep 20 2010, 11:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What is the aim of the cap?Is it to stop clubs struggling?Its not stopped Quins-Crusaders,Wakey,
Fax etc having major problems.Hull k.r are alleged to have 3million in loans.Bradford are weak financially.So for me its not very good system.

Has it evened the comp out?No as the same teams are in the grand final as before.Wigan,Saints and Leeds with Bradford having gone. The better players are still going to the big clubs like Shenton,Pitts etc.

The likes of Warrington,Bradford,Huddersfield,Salford are raiding the youth ranks in Halifax,Leigh,Cumbria,Heavy Woolen area as the quality and quantity in in these areas is way better than in the towns with the SL club. This makes life harder for championship clubs.So what is the caps aim exactly?For me its done very little for clubs financially or on the field.SL clubs have not invested much in to improving local talent.They would rather raid other service areas for the academy.


The aim of the cap is now to prevent wage inflation and create an even SL playing field.

It has nothing to do with Junior development which Hetherington recognised as the future and got four SL wins from that policy. More fool those who have followed late and been forced to do it.

It has nothing to do with Quins and Crusaders who are having to build an audience and a junior RL system from scratch.

It has nothing to do with such as Wakey and Cas stuck in old grounds whilst luckier clubs have got new grounds.

It has got nothing to do with clubs like Bradford, Salford, Cas and wakey not being able to afford to pay wages as high as others, and players moving on.

The idea always was to create 14 well supported big clubs with good marketing, high turnovers and quality academies.

Then apply the cap to make for financial probity and an even playing field.

If some clubs can't meet the cap, have to ship expensive overseas players in, lose quality juniors and are largely skint.....

And others have big crowds, sugar daddies and good young players,

Then the latter clubs will always be on top and that has nothing to do with the cap.

So to say it does and call for it to go is somewhat puzzling.

Because if it goes the inequalities and mad spending on salaries will be rampant.



#80 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,581 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 07:33 AM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 20 2010, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The aim of the cap is now to prevent wage inflation and create an even SL n.

The idea always was to create 14 well supported big clubs with good marketing, high turnovers and quality academies.


The idea has failed then as aftet all these years we do not have even 6 well supported big clubs with good marketing and well run businesses that see clubs that are self sufficient with good stadiums, thigh turnover and good local academies.
SL is not even at all as the usual suspects are always in the grand final. So the cap has failed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users