Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Salary Cap


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#161 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:31 PM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 23 2010, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Dally how has the salary cap worked wonders in Aus? Remember Aus is the perfect place to have a cap with so much playing talent available. Maybe an abundance of playing talent is the key to a more equal competition NOT a salary cap?

NRL clubs still have financial woes. Cronulla being the obvious example. Whatsmore, even with so much playing talent available, St George week in week out look dominant. There will always be a club / team dominant. Will Cronulla be Minor Premiers in 2011? 2012?

Many people in Aus, most notably Gus Gould are against the Salary Cap (which at least is being increased there) because countless star players have been taken from the NRL and the likes of Gould argue has made the competition weaker.

You cannot compare the NRL with SL One has an abundance of playing talent. The other has an acute shortage of playing talent


It was recently reported that even a good majority of Australian players believe in the salary cap despite it being detrimental to their own personal fortunes.

Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?

#162 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:33 PM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 23 2010, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?


It would probably be like it was before. The top teams would be slightly better and much better than the lower placed teams who would inevitably be worse.

At least in theory the salary cap produces closer games meaning that players get regularly exposed to games of higher intensity. In the past we had massive score lines and the big teams only playing a few intense games a year.

#163 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:49 PM

QUOTE (shrek @ Sep 23 2010, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Different competitions in different cultures with vastly different histories.

Being a graduate of "The Parksider RL academy" and a good student to boot I am sure I don't need to tell you, but for the reference of others, prior to the salary cap in the UK only Wigan had won the title in 3 or more consecutive seasons, of the heartland clubs currently in Super League, only Castleford don't have a title to there name. So we do have a history of the pots being shared about somewhat.

You could argue and many have on here that Wigans dominance of the late 80's/early to mid 90's was an anomaly due to the mix of part and full time teams and even then some of those seasons ended up with point ties and titles decided on points difference.

So from a level competition point of view, in the UK the salary cap is a fail, there is a good argument that it actually pulls the draw bridge up and stops the smaller clubs ever breaking the mold.


that whole different cultures things is BS.

the RFL moved away from P&R to franchising - last time i checked franchising wasnt a cultural thing in england

without a salary cap you saw the 2 richest english RL clubs spending what they wanted to on players

leeds had to sell headingly and wigan lost central park to became co tennants at the jjb.

clubs need to be saved from thelmselves

#164 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:52 PM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 23 2010, 05:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Dally how has the salary cap worked wonders in Aus? Remember Aus is the perfect place to have a cap with so much playing talent available. Maybe an abundance of playing talent is the key to a more equal competition NOT a salary cap?

NRL clubs still have financial woes. Cronulla being the obvious example. Whatsmore, even with so much playing talent available, St George week in week out look dominant. There will always be a club / team dominant. Will Cronulla be Minor Premiers in 2011? 2012?

Many people in Aus, most notably Gus Gould are against the Salary Cap (which at least is being increased there) because countless star players have been taken from the NRL and the likes of Gould argue has made the competition weaker.

You cannot compare the NRL with SL One has an abundance of playing talent. The other has an acute shortage of playing talent


gould is an easts man. easts have a rich owner and a rich leagues club and no juniors and he just wants to be able to spend what he can on players

cronulla finished in the top 4 only a few seasons back

saints havent actually won a comp since 1979 either!

weve lost loads of good players to super league, union everywhere and now even AFL.

we still keep growing

#165 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:53 PM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 23 2010, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?


the richest 4 clubs would have all the best players so their playing standards would be better

for every other team they would be far worse.

#166 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:54 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Sep 23 2010, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was recently reported that even a good majority of Australian players believe in the salary cap despite it being detrimental to their own personal fortunes.

Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?


yep a players poll in an aussie rugby league mag did confirm that

#167 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,905 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE (dallymessenger @ Sep 23 2010, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
that whole different cultures things is BS.

the RFL moved away from P&R to franchising - last time i checked franchising wasnt a cultural thing in england

without a salary cap you saw the 2 richest english RL clubs spending what they wanted to on players

leeds had to sell headingly and wigan lost central park to became co tennants at the jjb.

clubs need to be saved from thelmselves


Leeds proved that money spent doesn't equal success.

May be clubs do, may fans don't mind, would Portsmouth fans swap there FA Cup final win for the financial stability of a decade or more in the lower mid table of the Premiership? The ones I know wouldn't, they are reveling in the roller coaster ride of it all, sports fans, we're all different.

Forgive me if I am wrong, is I understand your position, and can see why as an Australian you'd be in favour of the cap, significant parts of RL top flight history in your country has been dominated by one or two clubs, I am thinking of South Sydney and St George in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. We have never had that in this country, with the exception of Wigan in the late 80's early 90's which many will argue was down to the part time/full time split as much as anything.

Your point on licensing being cultural is a good one, whilst I am happy to give it ago and see where it takes us its hardly been embraced by the RL community at large, as a regular visitor to these boards it can't have escaped your attention it can be a bone of contention with many!

#168 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,905 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 06:56 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Sep 23 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?


Thats an interesting question, yes I do, personally.

The rules around football finances change around 2012, there are some interesting articles knocking about, there is an interested one in this months When Saturday Comes pointing out that the changes whilst limiting spending, will in effect prevent any lower clubs breaking the cartel that exists at the top of the table. There are holes in the argument, but it makes for an interesting read.

#169 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 07:10 PM

QUOTE (shrek @ Sep 23 2010, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thats an interesting question, yes I do, personally.

The rules around football finances change around 2012, there are some interesting articles knocking about, there is an interested one in this months When Saturday Comes pointing out that the changes whilst limiting spending, will in effect prevent any lower clubs breaking the cartel that exists at the top of the table. There are holes in the argument, but it makes for an interesting read.


How would they manage it though? I can see how the prestige of Man United would help them to attract players but Chelsea? In theory they wouldn't be able to pay any more on wages or fees than say Newcastle United.

#170 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,905 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 07:16 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Sep 23 2010, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How would they manage it though? I can see how the prestige of Man United would help them to attract players but Chelsea? In theory they wouldn't be able to pay any more on wages or fees than say Newcastle United.


It depends on how it was implemented and what the rules were, first thing that comes to mind is I bet Newcastle end up paying a premium to attract decent foreign talent who'd prefer to live in London, no disrespect mean't to Newcastle!

I guess players also want success, given the choice if Wigan and Chelsea came knocking at your door as a professional footballer both offering the same amount of cash I would imagine the vast majority would choose Chelsea making the cycle hard to break on cash grounds alone.

#171 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 07:07 AM

QUOTE (shrek @ Sep 23 2010, 06:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Being a graduate of "The Parksider RL academy" and a good student to boot I am sure I don't need to tell you, but for the reference of others, prior to the salary cap in the UK only Wigan had won the title in 3 or more consecutive seasons, of the heartland clubs currently in Super League, only Castleford don't have a title to there name. So we do have a history of the pots being shared about somewhat.


Sure we have a history of the pots being shared about. The history up to Superleague is around 100 years of clubs tilting to be champions or cup winners.Superleague is erm 14 years on so maybe we should re-check matters in 86 years to compare like with like.

However if you look at the various successes by smaller clubs from years ago often they won because they got together a great local team. In 1931 nearly all Widnes's cup winning team were from Widnes and nearly all Hunslets cup and championship team were from Hunslet. That went on to Fev and Cas teams in the 80's...

Part of the Superleague deal is that clubs reduce the dependance on buying in players and actually develop their own. If that happens and the signs are that it is, then teams will come strong whenever they have a period when they unearth some pretty good juniors. Under an even cap they will be able to keep them IF they can afford the cap and maybe have a good run in the league.

Leeds had a good SL run after unearthing a good crop of juniors all at once, and of course Saints do well with young players - funny how these are the clubs people are moaning about. Sure players like Ellis and Wilkin were taken from the "Calder" area but of course the Calder area has no Superleague club that is well set up and can easily manage full salary cap. Those clubs who have been also rans in SL have largely ignored the kids, and only when franchising came in were shocked into doing something.

So the cap system allied to the youth development system is a superb way of getting us back to the "good old days" people crave. It just needs more than Leeds and Saints to be developing good players and bringing them into their first team and protecting them by being able to spend full cap. The signs are the Tomkins Bros may well help Wigan to a title, we shall see over the next 10 days.

I don't know where the large junior set ups in London and Wales will end up, but it may be if they have a local SL club spending full cap to go to we will see a couple of good expansion teams on the back of those kids. If SL remains uneven in the ability to pay full cap in wages we may not but that's not the caps fault.

Northern Sol mocked the idea Quins juniors may one day see them compete. I wonder how the Lancashire clubs will all manage in the coming years getting a share of quality kids when five clubs are all in the one area, but if your an old traditionalist I suppose it will be because great RL players only come from up t'north.

So on your history and statistics examinations you fail and are not allowed into my academy. You can however join Northern Sols reformatory for boys........

#172 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,905 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 07:26 AM

So now by using our history to make a point that I understand why an Aussie would embrace the cap given the large periods of domination over there by one or two clubs in contrast to how our game has evolved you resort to the flat cap argument? rolleyes.gif

I shall duck out of this thread, with one final, non-relevant point to the overall debate as we've reached the point we are repeating the same old same old in another rambling monologues to each other.

The 3 years I spent at South London, followed by the 2 years spent at St Albans, combined with 5 years of watching Quins/Skolars were amongst the happiest times I've had involved in rugby so there are some out there who will embrace and support expansion whilst also managing to disagree with your good self your cheap shots do your arguments a disservice.

#173 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 07:35 AM

QUOTE (shrek @ Sep 24 2010, 08:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So now by using our history to make a point that I understand why an Aussie would embrace the cap given the large periods of domination over there by one or two clubs in contrast to how our game has evolved you resort to the flat cap argument? rolleyes.gif

Seems you want to have a go about my "academy" but don't like the "reformatory". I mean no offence but if people want to be sarcastic, I don't mind standing my corner. I'm sure if we (all) met face to face we'd be a bit less inclined to "have a go" at ach other. I'll apologise first - sorry if you have taken offence.

I appreciated your points on policing the cap, and also your point about something far more above board and transparent like a draft, I'd go for that for sure....



#174 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 07:50 AM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 23 2010, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?


Even the playing abilities of the players out across the clubs and you have even competition in each game.
That makes for entertaining Rugby League. The "matches" will all be a higher spectator standard.

Put all the very best players into two teams and you have two league games to die for.
The other 12 will be a lower standard. Every time the top two play a lower club and blow them away it will not be entertaining.

Put all the best players in 7 teams and the worst in 7 teams and half the matches will be of a higher standard half the time and a lower standard the other half of the time. Maybe that is where we are now??

You can switch players all over the clubs but you won't change those players. Except it is said that Australian players hone their skills in intensive even games. It is said that you gain nothing playing a team of a lower standard e.g. England's matches against France.

But the bottom line of "standards" must be to try to improve both the quality of the matches and the quality of the players.

The cap makes the matches as even as possible.

The franchise system makes clubs try to find more kids to play the game

The SKY money allows the pro clubs to employ Aussie coaches who have an effect on standards

Then the argument becomes that the Aussies are still better than us. But the answer is that the rules to force clubs to develop junior RL only came in recently. The first 10 years of SL was completely wasted when it came to raising standards.....

#175 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 22 2010, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Would a capless SL / RL be better or worse? No cap would mean the BEST players could be signed from the NRL, from Union and standards of play would rise. Even the 'lesser' clubs could sign a Wally Lewis and have 15 minutes of glory. Maybe more fans would be attracted to the game. If clubs suffer financial difficulties then what's new. Better a SL with great players and rising standards.



You will have to expand on this paragraph. How would SL be able to attract players from a competition that has far greater wealth, as a collective sport as well as individuals involved.

If it came to a peeing up the wall competition between SL, NRL and RU Sl's level would be by far the lowest.

#176 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:21 AM

QUOTE (getdownmonkeyman @ Sep 24 2010, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You will have to expand on this paragraph. How would SL be able to attract players from a competition that has far greater wealth, as a collective sport as well as individuals involved.

If it came to a peeing up the wall competition between SL, NRL and RU Sl's level would be by far the lowest.
Very well put. Ultimately this is the issue I have with scrapping the cap. I agree with posters that there could be tweaks and improvements, but clubs are losing money hand over fist at the moment, so if you suddenly allow them to spend another couple of million each, surely the big clubs would just lose more. Now, its all well and good when we have people to throw their money at clubs, but they are few and far between, and we have seen how they dip out as soon as the going gets tough, and that is with a cap in place.


#177 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:31 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 24 2010, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Very well put. Ultimately this is the issue I have with scrapping the cap. I agree with posters that there could be tweaks and improvements, but clubs are losing money hand over fist at the moment, so if you suddenly allow them to spend another couple of million each, surely the big clubs would just lose more. Now, its all well and good when we have people to throw their money at clubs, but they are few and far between, and we have seen how they dip out as soon as the going gets tough, and that is with a cap in place.


I get the sense that those who think the cap should be removed think that the money men would ALL throw more money in. Hughes wants to put less in, Caddick is not at Leeds to throw money at Rhinos at all (He's Union), Lenegan has stated he does not want Wigan to rely on his money, we are told O'Connor is in it to ensure Widnes operate self sustaining and he's not come to throw millions about, Hudgell's an ambulabce chaser and is probably stretched just to keep HKR at this level......

Davey is as per Steve Mays assertion not likely to cut loose, there's no real money at Crusaders, and Wilkinsons record has never been to throw money at Salford.

That to me leaves McManus and Moran to cut loose and buy up all the talent in this wonderful new world of unlimited "investment".

So Dave - would Mr. Moran flash the cash????

#178 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,086 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:48 AM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 24 2010, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I get the sense that those who think the cap should be removed think that the money men would ALL throw more money in. Hughes wants to put less in, Caddick is not at Leeds to throw money at Rhinos at all (He's Union), Lenegan has stated he does not want Wigan to rely on his money, we are told O'Connor is in it to ensure Widnes operate self sustaining and he's not come to throw millions about, Hudgell's an ambulabce chaser and is probably stretched just to keep HKR at this level......

Davey is as per Steve Mays assertion not likely to cut loose, there's no real money at Crusaders, and Wilkinsons record has never been to throw money at Salford.

That to me leaves McManus and Moran to cut loose and buy up all the talent in this wonderful new world of unlimited "investment".

So Dave - would Mr. Moran flash the cash????
I would suspect that he would be happy to invest some more, as we have seen he is happy to invest in transfer fees, however I'm not convinced he would want a massive increase in the cap. I believe Warrington have previously voted for an increase so would expect that he would be happy to pump some in, but without a cap altogether, those amounts could have to become silly if certain clubs went ott.

If there was an abundance of cash knocking around, I suspect that we would see more transfer fees. That has been something that has differentiated Warrington from a few other clubs over the past few years, in that we have paid a couple of decent sized transfer fees for English talent. Surely if there were frustrated investors who wanted to flash the cash, they could do it in this way.


#179 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:53 AM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Sep 24 2010, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I get the sense that those who think the cap should be removed think that the money men would ALL throw more money in. Hughes wants to put less in, Caddick is not at Leeds to throw money at Rhinos at all (He's Union), Lenegan has stated he does not want Wigan to rely on his money, we are told O'Connor is in it to ensure Widnes operate self sustaining and he's not come to throw millions about, Hudgell's an ambulabce chaser and is probably stretched just to keep HKR at this level......

Davey is as per Steve Mays assertion not likely to cut loose, there's no real money at Crusaders, and Wilkinsons record has never been to throw money at Salford.

That to me leaves McManus and Moran to cut loose and buy up all the talent in this wonderful new world of unlimited "investment".

So Dave - would Mr. Moran flash the cash????



I feel a little sorry for Moran in this. Only one facet is seen in his investment; transfer fees. What isn't seen is his investment (and I put that loosely as our income streams are quite good) in bringing in John Bastian to head up and co-ordinate the junior set-up. An additional physio, a nutritionist (only had one for the past 12 months) or another person to do the stats/video analysis. I think Tony Smith has been a watershed to Moran, investing in the infrastructure is as important, if not moreso than focussing solely on the first team. That is also my impression that Leneghan has at Wigan. If there are players who are available and would benefit the club and the coach has expressed a desire to have them; go and try to sign them, but not at the expense of the overall infrastructure.

#180 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,326 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:00 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 24 2010, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would suspect that he would be happy to invest some more, as we have seen he is happy to invest in transfer fees, however I'm not convinced he would want a massive increase in the cap. I believe Warrington have previously voted for an increase so would expect that he would be happy to pump some in, but without a cap altogether, those amounts could have to become silly if certain clubs went ott.

If there was an abundance of cash knocking around, I suspect that we would see more transfer fees. That has been something that has differentiated Warrington from a few other clubs over the past few years, in that we have paid a couple of decent sized transfer fees for English talent. Surely if there were frustrated investors who wanted to flash the cash, they could do it in this way.


That is an excellent point indeed as regards the transfer fee.

I wonder if anyone has any views on wether Mr. McManus would go crazy should the cap be lifted?

It's looking like that even if the cap was removed only a few clubs may spend more, and not that much more.

Take away from that any investors who decide if the stakes are going up they are going out, and it is probably the case that SL could see no real extra money spent if the cap was removed and it's debatable wether across the board there would not be a decrease in "investment".

I'm sure if a couple of clubs let loose with no cap, several investors may decide not to bother at all any more. Who would want to put money into a club for it to survive in SL only for the cap to be removed allowing other clubs even more leeway to take their best young players.

Hughes and Hudgell have been putting in millions to make sure their clubs can get to full cap, raise the cap to limitless and it won't be worth them bothering.