Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL.


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:49 PM

'If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL' was the point made on back chat today.

Stupid idea or would it actually increase standards in SL?

Discuss.

#2 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:53 PM

Stupid unless a league of about 6 clubs sounds exciting.

#3 steef

steef
  • Coach
  • 1,478 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:54 PM

I dont have an issue with the idea but can enough clubs afford it?
"surely they've got to try somthing different now, maybe the little chip over the top?2


http://www.flickr.com/photos/stufod/

http://www.facebook....156268557729980

#4 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,297 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:59 PM

I can see the point that was being made, but it can't happen any time soon.

If you have to spend the full cap then that is encouraging clubs to go bust or drop out, if clubs drop out, and we could be looking at 4 to 6 clubs, who will replace them that can spend the cap.

How do you prove you can spend the cap, do clubs with a three year license have to deposit £1.8m each year with the RFL at the start of the season to pay the players wages.

If you say that if you don't pay the full cap in anyone season then your out, who comes in and where does the money come from.

Do you have to have a percentage of the cap reserved for possible emergencies.

What if you don't spend the full cap and win the Grand Final, are you relegated. ( Yes this could happen now but you are measured on a lot more criteria)

Edited by Padge, 26 March 2013 - 11:02 PM.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#5 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,161 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:03 PM

Bad idea because teams would be forced to waste money even if players weren't available. Like the year widnes came up they didn't have a top quality squad and very few top players were on the market. What would be good is clubs should have to meet a minimum spend but that shouldn't be the cap. On a £1.65m cap clubs should have to spend say between £1.3 and
£1.4m. That would give clubs enough movement if they go into a transitional year.

#6 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,037 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:14 AM

It's basically force teams to pay average players more money. How would that improve standards? They're already full time.
Posted Image

#7 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:49 AM

Essential for RL to become super IMO ,too many clubs know they have nothing to play for so can concentrate on balancing books and not contributing to the future of the sport

#8 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,048 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:58 AM

Essential for RL to become super IMO ,too many clubs know they have nothing to play for so can concentrate on balancing books and not contributing to the future of the sport


What is the point paying mediocre players top dollar when the number of quality players to make the league competitive aren't actually available? Some clubs would be better advised using money to increase the participation within their own areas and then developing the pathways for the cream of the crop to rise into the first teams... certain clubs would be better funding a number of junior sides rather than paying players like Josh Perry £150,000 a year etc. The game needs to look at the strategic picture for long term benefits, not short term fixes which it is doing.

Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#9 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,951 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:16 AM

Silly idea, there seems to be a recurring misconception that spending up to the cap limit will make a side competitive.

#10 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,512 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:33 AM

'If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL' was the point made on back chat today.

Stupid idea or would it actually increase standards in SL?

Discuss.


Backchat will throw up stuff just to fill the TV slot.

It's a good idea in theory to get everyone competing but the posts above outline the problems.

How can Salford spend full cap when there's nobody to spend it on?

Won't it force wage inflation??

What about clubs who manage to have a darn good side on a couple of hundred grand less because of their excellent junior system.

The licensing commitee sort this out. If clubs don't have the money they will reject them like Halifax last time.

If SLE find they cant get clubs who can spend enough to be competitive then they may consider dropping SL down to say 12.

These are sensible ways of sorting this issue out...

#11 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,077 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:27 AM

About 3 weeks ago on another thread I suggested that there will be a move towards a minimum, rather than a maximum, spend in SL as a stealth move to jettison a couple of clubs from SL. I still believe that will happen and will be used as an unofficial criteria when clubs are scored if licensing is still with us.

#12 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,512 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:20 AM

About 3 weeks ago on another thread I suggested that there will be a move towards a minimum, rather than a maximum, spend in SL as a stealth move to jettison a couple of clubs from SL. I still believe that will happen and will be used as an unofficial criteria when clubs are scored if licensing is still with us.


That's fair enough.

Listening carefully to these sort of issues there are two clubs that have given up the ghost on the salary cap and have pitched their wages at as much as they can afford not to end up like Halifax 2003.

The purpose is I believe not to stack up any more losses, but when cutting back as far as they dare on wages one wonders exactly what cuts they have made behind the scenes, all of which should equally go against them next license round.

Care to suggest the "couple of clubs"??

#13 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,077 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:54 AM

Care to suggest the "couple of clubs"??


I think Castleford would go. They would be the obvious favourites. No money, no further forward with stadium development, a club treading water really.

Rightly or wrongly, I think London will go too unless someone comes forward to replace Hughes - they simply can't survive without the kind of financial input he puts in. If its true that he's quitting next year then its difflcult to see how they can carry on in SL without him or someone of his ilk. That's the harsh reality.

I'm not saying they'd be my personal choices to go, just that if you were losing 2 clubs then they'd be the obvious candidates as things stand at the moment.

Where that leaves the likes of Fev is another matter altogether........

#14 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:58 AM

Personally I think the "all clubs pay up to the cap" is unenforceable. For example, take Wigan this year, up until just before the season we were assuming we would be playing Hock, now Widnes are paying most (or maybe all) of his wage, meaning that the team is now below the cap (assuming it was up to it in the first place considering the high profile players who left last year).

I think a better line would be, perhaps an extra point in the franchising score if you can prove you can pay up to the cap. Difficult I know, off hand I'd suggest maybe showing that a full cap would be below 50% of the clubs turnover.

Whatever happens though the cap has to start going up AT LEAST with inflation. The current cap, through not having moved for so long has devalued by a third.

#15 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,892 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:08 AM

It's basically force teams to pay average players more money. How would that improve standards? They're already full time.


Nail, head.

Paying Sam Tomkins twice the money doesn't make him twice as good.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#16 Stratobill

Stratobill
  • Coach
  • 1,894 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:30 AM

The current SL clubs can't even afford to run a reserve grade competition so until they can they should forget about paying the full salary cap. A full league of players has just been lost, some SL players but mostly guys in the Championship that had lost their place by being replaced due to dual registration.

The whole concept of SL was to reduce overseas players and develop up and coming players to enable us to compete in the international games.

There is no future in any sport that doesn't develop young players. You cannot expect a young lad playing at Championship level to suddenly become international class.

Bring back the under 23 league before we lose a generation of players and several Championship clubs go under due to no fans. Some will say why will they go bust ? If your club has a bad few years and get relegated to the Championship and the team is then dual registered would you go and watch your team when it's full of your rivals players ? Only time will tell and hopefully things will change before its too late.
Are We Human, Or Are We Rovers. Our time For Winning Is Here And Now, So Be Loud N Proud, Lets Hear You Singing, Are We Human, Or Are Rovers. They Play With Style And Virtue, Put Their Bodys On The Line, Always Battling For The Victory, They Always Did The Best They Could, Sing Out For Fev Rovers, Blue N White Is All We Know. Stand Up Proud. Swell Your Heart. You Gotta Let Them Know, Are We Human, No We Are Rovers

#17 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:33 AM

Paying Sam Tomkins twice the money doesn't make him twice as good.


No but it might stop him being a union great and staying in RL

#18 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 5,223 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:24 AM

'If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL' was the point made on back chat today.

Stupid idea or would it actually increase standards in SL?

Discuss.


oh the irony a barrow fan pontificating about the salary cap...........................
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#19 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,733 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:31 AM

No but it might stop him being a union great and staying in RL

Yes - but where do we stop?

Union has a much bigger salary cap, as do the NRL - they can both outbid us, unless we go to at least their level, which the game can't afford.

#20 usain bolt

usain bolt
  • Coach
  • 948 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:31 AM

theres not enough sl standard players to choose from. thats one of the biggest problems the game faces, player participation at all levels.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users