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 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



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

#21 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:33 AM

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

This doesn't make sense. The best players will be playing in SL. THAT is SL standard.

We may want it to be higher, but whatever we have in there is the standard.

#22 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:44 AM

How about we flip this on its head: what if clubs had to prove they had the ability to pay the full cap, but weren't compelled to spend it each year.

Taking it a step further: what if all the players in Super League were centrally contracted with a salary cap of, say, £2.1m. All wages would go straight through the payroll at Red Hall, with a mandatory pension scheme for all players. The clubs themselves would be required to lodge a top-up payment of, say, £500k to supplement the money awarded by Sky to cover wages.

In this scenario, we'd have complete transparency where the salary cap is concerned; we'd also avoid a repeat of recent situations where players aren't getting paid. In addition, we could also implement a system (similar to the NRL) where clubs could carry over unspent salary cap allowance from one year to the next.

Finally, you'd also create a situation whereby the RFL are custodians of the players' welfare but could also take direct control of things such as image rights.

Just a thought.

#23 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:46 AM

This doesn't make sense. The best players will be playing in SL. THAT is SL standard.

We may want it to be higher, but whatever we have in there is the standard.


You're getting picky over semantics again.

I think it's quite clear that the point he's making is that there aren't enough elite standard players in the current talent pool to service 14 Super League clubs.

#24 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,599 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:48 AM

So, to sum up:
If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL.

In theory, good idea.

In reality, impossible and unworkable at the moment.

#25 thundergaz

thundergaz
  • Coach
  • 3,148 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:52 AM

It should be the other way around for me with a minimum salary cap. Lets just say the cap gets upped to say 2m the minimum should be 1.5mil cap.

#26 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:53 AM

You're getting picky over semantics again.

I think it's quite clear that the point he's making is that there aren't enough elite standard players in the current talent pool to service 14 Super League clubs.

Nope, not semantics at all, and it wasn't on the other thread - you suggested something which wasn't in my post.

My point on this thread is that people often quote that we don;t have enough SL standard players, we absolutely do, its probably just that the standard is lower than some would like to admit.

All of the 14 clubs have a full squad, therefore there are enough players.

If people argue that we don;t have enough World Class players, then fair enough, but I just don;t get the not enough SL standard players thing. It is negative and people keep repeating it to talk the game down.

In all sports there are teams at the top and teams at the bottom, there is nothing to suggest that Cas' players for example are not SL standard, just that they aren't as good as say Wigans.

#27 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,241 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:57 AM

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.


There are a couple of replies to this. The first point is increasing the cap with inflation (I said at least... but this is the first point). If you don't increase it with inflation you are in effect lowering the salary cap. We've now lowered the cap for over 10 years and reduced the value of it by over a third. How many clubs haven't increased their gate prices in that time... I'm pretty sure all of them have (though if someone presents evidence on the contrary I'll defer the point). Backroom staff wages will have increased with inflation, so why not the players?

The other point is about above inflationary rises. Yes Union is bigger than us with a bigger cap, BUT we probably don't have to match their top end salaries. Currently they probably know that to match the salary of one of the best 5 or 10 players in our league they only have to offer them the salary of an average player in their league. Not much risk there is there? If the player doesn't turn out to be any good at union, or isn't enthused by it, or doesn't find god there or whatever they've not risked a big portion of their cap on the player. Now say one of the best league players would cost them the amount of a good union player, not the best but good. To afford that player they'd have to re-juggle their finances, risk putting players who have come through the ranks noses out of joint, because player X who has never played Union in his life and might not actually be any good, is being paid more than them. There would be times when the risk was worth it, probably Tomkins would be one (especially with his media profile), but that would probably take other young up can coming players off their menu, like Charnley, Hardaker, Gaskell.

#28 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,541 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:58 AM

Nope, not semantics at all, and it wasn't on the other thread - you suggested something which wasn't in my post.

My point on this thread is that people often quote that we don;t have enough SL standard players, we absolutely do, its probably just that the standard is lower than some would like to admit.

All of the 14 clubs have a full squad, therefore there are enough players.

If people argue that we don;t have enough World Class players, then fair enough, but I just don;t get the not enough SL standard players thing. It is negative and people keep repeating it to talk the game down.

In all sports there are teams at the top and teams at the bottom, there is nothing to suggest that Cas' players for example are not SL standard, just that they aren't as good as say Wigans.


Semantics.

You know precisely the point he was making.

#29 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:59 AM

Semantics.

You know precisely the point he was making.

Stop telling me what I know and what I don;t know.

Put me on ignore if there are any issues with having a different opinion to you.

#30 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,985 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:15 AM

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

Paying players nowhere near as good as Tomkins a similar wage might also drive him into Union's welcoming arms too.

rldfsignature.jpg


#31 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,985 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:16 AM

oh the irony a barrow fan pontificating about the salary cap...........................

He's hardly pontificating,he's simply throwing a subject for discussion into the forum.

rldfsignature.jpg


#32 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,241 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:24 AM

Paying players nowhere near as good as Tomkins a similar wage might also drive him into Union's welcoming arms too.


I'm not sure I understand... can you explain this view point. If he is deemed too much of a risk for the salary as I discussed its more a case of keeping Union away than golden handcuffing him in League.

#33 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,964 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:31 AM

If people argue that we don;t have enough World Class players, then fair enough, but I just don;t get the not enough SL standard players thing. It is negative and people keep repeating it to talk the game down.


Steve McNamara was on Radio Manchesters Thursday night show last week, well worth a listen if its still on iplayer.

Whilst he was discussing player numbers in relation to Duel Registration and having player of a sufficient calibre to call them "Semi Professional" the points he made are probably just as applicable here. I stand to be corrected but I'm sure he quoted participation numbers of approximatley 2500 at U14 level across the country (if I mishead or recall incorrectly I appologise in advance!). But from that figure the point he seemed to be making is that there's only ever going to be a small percentage will the talent and desire etc to "make it", its not a figure I'd ever thought of, but its not a massive pool from which to draw talent, which I think dovetails nicely into some of the points made in this thread.

On the flip side of course, there's more people play football in England than live in Montenegro so quantity doesn't always return sufficient quality!

As an aside, in the discussion that kick started the debate, did they actually establish what the full cap is, given its far more comlicated than just being a figure of £1.65 million?

#34 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:53 AM

Steve McNamara was on Radio Manchesters Thursday night show last week, well worth a listen if its still on iplayer.

Whilst he was discussing player numbers in relation to Duel Registration and having player of a sufficient calibre to call them "Semi Professional" the points he made are probably just as applicable here. I stand to be corrected but I'm sure he quoted participation numbers of approximatley 2500 at U14 level across the country (if I mishead or recall incorrectly I appologise in advance!). But from that figure the point he seemed to be making is that there's only ever going to be a small percentage will the talent and desire etc to "make it", its not a figure I'd ever thought of, but its not a massive pool from which to draw talent, which I think dovetails nicely into some of the points made in this thread.

On the flip side of course, there's more people play football in England than live in Montenegro so quantity doesn't always return sufficient quality!

As an aside, in the discussion that kick started the debate, did they actually establish what the full cap is, given its far more comlicated than just being a figure of £1.65 million?

The 2500 sounds incredibly low, in reality I have no idea whether it is or not!

I'm firmly in the camp of getting more and more juniors playing the game as the best approach.

I think there was a decent post earlier on in the thread which highlighted what the cap could be with the additional payments - £1.8m seems to be in my head!

#35 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,985 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:02 PM

I'm not sure I understand... can you explain this view point. If he is deemed too much of a risk for the salary as I discussed its more a case of keeping Union away than golden handcuffing him in League.

Arguably the star player in SL is being paid £200,000 (for a number) a season and is happy with that. However new rules come in that allow far less talented players to be paid more than their talent deserves and gets £150,000 (for a number). Mr Tomkins thinks he deserves more money and the next chance he gets he switches to RU.

rldfsignature.jpg


#36 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,241 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

Arguably the star player in SL is being paid £200,000 (for a number) a season and is happy with that. However new rules come in that allow far less talented players to be paid more than their talent deserves and gets £150,000 (for a number). Mr Tomkins thinks he deserves more money and the next chance he gets he switches to RU.


Personally I don't think this argument stands up. Since its the club owners that set the wage I'd see it happening more like this:

Lets say we have 2 players, lets call them ST and PW. ST is one of the best players in the league and earns £200k (as per your argument). Player PR is a player getting to the end of his career and hasn't been hitting the highs for the last few seasons having been hit by injury, but is still rated as one of the better players in his position (not to mention a good goal kicker), and is on, say £125k (bit vague here because you didn't state what their original base salary was). A salary cap increase occurs and PR tries to negotiate a salary increase to £150k. From here we have two outcomes.

1) the club owner looks at the situation and knows that the chances are that all the players on the books are going to look for a pay rise. He does his calculations and negotiates a sustainable increase which he could, if they pushed, give out more or less universally to the players to keep the pay steps the same as they were before the cap and keeping all players happy.

or

2) the club owner gives in to PR's demands and gives him the £150k without thinking about the implications for the rest of the players (this is what we should call 'bad management'... could you really see Lenigan doing this?). Player ST looks at his team mates wage increase and realises he's now onlyl on £50k more, but he's twice the player PR is and deserves more muhahahahahaha, he goes to renegotiate but is told. His agent entertains offers from league and union clubs. Other league clubs, either newly taken over by very rich doctors, or who have been run more sustainable salary caps and just lost senior players offer £300k because he's worth it, union say "hrm to get this player we're going to have to pay £350k AT LEAST, previously that was only £250k, thats too much of a risk".

I can also envisage scenario

3) PR gets his pay rise to £150k, ST says "awww the old mans getting to top his pension up. Bless! I'm still on £50k more than him and I can renegotiate when he retires next year for even more.... muhahahaha"

Personally I think Lenigan is more likely to do option 1, although there are club owners in the league who probably aren't as good at running a business.

#37 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

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........


London - one would assume - would have a great chance of finding their Dr Koukash figure. Cas are clearly a different story. It brings us back to the age old debate about demographics and the geographical spread of the league. But I wouldn't envisage a shortage of takers to invest in London post-Hughes. The rewards are plain to see.

#38 John Rhino

John Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,514 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:26 PM

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


How would you know until a club were actually in SL? Stupid idea.

Derby City - proud to be flying the flag for Rugby League in the Midlands for over 24 years.
 

Visit:  http://www.derbycityrlfc.co.uk and see the progress being made.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @derbycityrlfc


#39 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,728 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:08 PM

It won't work. It's as simple as that (to quote Stevo).

If we use the current cap as the 'must pay' figure, then probably only half a dozen clubs could pay that amount on player wages without it impacting strongly on other areas of their businesses. This would mean many clubs forced to pay the higher amount would have less to spend on junior development, less on updating grounds, less on 'back office' activity, less on coaching staff etc. Wasn't the cap brought in originally to actually prevent all that?

Neither does a Super League with only six clubs sound particularly exciting.

Edited by Bulliac, 27 March 2013 - 02:23 PM.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#40 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,271 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:14 PM

He's hardly pontificating,he's simply throwing a subject for discussion into the forum.


Thanks for replying, didn't want to reply as I don't want the thread to turn into a pointless go at one another.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users