Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Why the Red Devils will be a success.


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:27 PM

I've read it again and don't understand the proposal.


Ok, I'll try to explain it.

There are clubs in SL who are spending nowhere near the current cap as they can't afford to. I suspect some of them aren't even spending 3/4s of the current cap. The 'rich' clubs, by pushing for a big increase in the cap, are effectively saying that £1.6m should be a minimum spend and if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in SL. If Club A currently spends £1.6m and Club B spends £1.1m then raising the cap to £2.1m does absolutely nothing for Club B whatsoever. But it helps Club A on two fronts - firstly they can sign up Club B's better players and secondly they can increase the gap between them and Club B. It means that Club B would have to spend a minimum of the current cap to keep the gap where it is now. Basically it exposes the Club B's as those who can't afford to spend the minimum required to compete and builds a case for a smaller SL made up of clubs who can. The argument being that the only way to raise standards is to have clubs who can spend a certain amount (the minimum). A raised cap does nothing to the competitiveness of the top/rich clubs as the increase will be utilised by most of them and they'll cancel each other out, but it will be a nail in the coffin of the financially struggling clubs. Salford, Wigan, Leeds et al will happily increase their expenditure to the new limit because they can - but the Wakefield, Castleford and Hull KR's will still be down at their current level because a cap raise means nothing if you haven't got the money to spend in the first place.

#22 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 5,057 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:50 PM

raising the salary cap is not the answer will only lead to more clubs in bigger dept and more going bust. What the good doc needs is time to develop salford academy mixed with some experience players I think the days of buying success are over . Look at wigan and leeds two of our biggest clubs but they dont rush out and buy all the top players.I thought that was one of the reason promotion and relegation was scrapped was to give clubs time to build.


Not now, maybe; but they certainly used to do so. Not sure about the last big Leeds purchase, but Wigan bought Fielden as a 'quick fix' not that long ago. The two clubs built their sustained success (Wigan aren't actually back to the level of their best years, but the point stands) on a two-pronged approach. Get some strength in now and build for the future.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#23 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:07 PM

I just need to know how the salary cap is promoting mediocrity?

I'd also like to know how adding £400K to it will help anyone attract big name Aussies back or bring in top RU stars?

Of course if you exclusively allow Koukash a £3.4M salary cap for a couple of years he can offer to double the wages of anyone he's chasing, and nick them off their current clubs.

He can also stock up on the best juniors from places that actually do develop them.

All that money won't make them better players, but they will be better paid.

As for the "handful of other club owners who believe the cap is promoting mediocrity and thwarting ambition" I'd like to know who they are because no chairman I have heard speaking in the last few years is asking for the Salary cap to be significantly raise so he can create rampant wage inflation.....

Erm...... I mean buy in big name stars just waiting to be plucked from NRL/Union

No erm I mean........

Nope - don't get it.

The introduction of sky money allowed the chosen few to rip the hearts out of the none chosen lot, so why stop a guy who is wanting to spend his money spend it, it could in the long term bring more money men into the game.
Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#24 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:33 PM

I like the idea of 2 levels of fully pro RL and not just because it's my best hope of supporting a fully pro team.

The current cap is holding back the big clubs, who are capable of making the kind of signings that might make the media sit up and take notice.

Forcing the likes of Wigan to compete at say Wakefield's level drags the sport down.

Big successful clubs generate headlines, the current salary socialism that we have makes us look cheap.

2 tiers gives the big clubs the freedom to capture the best players and get nearer to NRL level intensity, while the smaller clubs get a chance to compete at an appropriate level, be they pro or semi at the moment.

More full time pros has got to have a positive effect on the home nations teams too.

All of course IMHO and subject to Sky, BT or whoever funding it through TV rights

Edited by Ponterover, 11 March 2013 - 08:35 PM.


#25 jannerboyuk

jannerboyuk
  • Coach
  • 4,990 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:15 PM

I like the idea of 2 levels of fully pro RL and not just because it's my best hope of supporting a fully pro team.

The current cap is holding back the big clubs, who are capable of making the kind of signings that might make the media sit up and take notice.

Forcing the likes of Wigan to compete at say Wakefield's level drags the sport down.

Big successful clubs generate headlines, the current salary socialism that we have makes us look cheap.

2 tiers gives the big clubs the freedom to capture the best players and get nearer to NRL level intensity, while the smaller clubs get a chance to compete at an appropriate level, be they pro or semi at the moment.

More full time pros has got to have a positive effect on the home nations teams too.

All of course IMHO and subject to Sky, BT or whoever funding it through TV rights

salay cap socialism? So rugby union is socialist? Nrl? Nfl? Nba? NHL? Er ok
PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugb...-wales-for-2013
Predictions for the future -
Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONG
Widnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHT
Crusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONG
Widnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/cardiffdemonsrlfc/
http://www.walesrugbyleague.co.uk/

I promise to pay �10 to the charity of Bomb Jacks choice if Widnes Millionaires finish above the battling underdogs Crusaders RL. I OWE A TENNER!
http://www.jaxaxe.co...89/Default.aspx

#26 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,701 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

Ok, I'll try to explain it.

There are clubs in SL who are spending nowhere near the current cap as they can't afford to. I suspect some of them aren't even spending 3/4s of the current cap. The 'rich' clubs, by pushing for a big increase in the cap, are effectively saying that £1.6m should be a minimum spend and if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in SL. If Club A currently spends £1.6m and Club B spends £1.1m then raising the cap to £2.1m does absolutely nothing for Club B whatsoever. But it helps Club A on two fronts - firstly they can sign up Club B's better players and secondly they can increase the gap between them and Club B. It means that Club B would have to spend a minimum of the current cap to keep the gap where it is now. Basically it exposes the Club B's as those who can't afford to spend the minimum required to compete and builds a case for a smaller SL made up of clubs who can. The argument being that the only way to raise standards is to have clubs who can spend a certain amount (the minimum). A raised cap does nothing to the competitiveness of the top/rich clubs as the increase will be utilised by most of them and they'll cancel each other out, but it will be a nail in the coffin of the financially struggling clubs. Salford, Wigan, Leeds et al will happily increase their expenditure to the new limit because they can - but the Wakefield, Castleford and Hull KR's will still be down at their current level because a cap raise means nothing if you haven't got the money to spend in the first place.


Thank you for this......

#27 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:28 PM

One possible offset of increasing the cap, is to force those who want to work with an increased cap to put a comparative sum into junior development.

#28 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,964 posts

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:29 PM

One possible offset of increasing the cap, is to force those who want to work with an increased cap to put a comparative sum into junior development.

I like that idea, a "luxory tax", perhaps paid to the RFL and ring fenced to pay for additional development officers.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users