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
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#61 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,229 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:07 PM

You are bang on the money. People of London don't want league they want union they have made that obvious ever since the broncos have been in exsistence. No rich money man will plow millions into a club with no fans. Business men arnt rich for no reason and its definitely not for being daft and throwing money at a dying business.


The people of London don't want union, how many top flight clubs from union are in London.

Plenty of money men throw money at clubs with no fans or not enough to cover anywhere near the costs, A certain Doctor has just started. I believe someone in Featherstone is doing it, As for soccer it seems they can't waste enough money on buying and paying players far more than the number of supporters they get through the gate could ever sustain.




Money men have always had a fascination with throwing money at sport,

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.


#62 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:11 PM

You are bang on the money. People of London don't want league they want union


Oh don't start being all biased.

People of Manchester/Salford don't want league, they want union too.

Sale's crowds have outstripped Salford's for some years.

Jack Fulton and Neil Hudgell have been pouring their money down black holes as well.

Plenty of black holes up here when it comes to producing players. London are doing better than several SL clubs and most CC clubs on this.

London need a balanced unbiased viewpoint. Ignore the London haters Gaz...

#63 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 517 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:04 PM

I'd say manchester/salford wants football, but that shouldn't stop salford doubling there crowds next season when the DR splashes the cash

#64 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:19 PM

I'd say manchester/salford wants football, but that shouldn't stop salford doubling there crowds next season when the DR splashes the cash


Agreed, I'd say London wants soccer and RU but also want some RL.....

Why not.

#65 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 517 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:59 PM

Agreed, I'd say London wants soccer and RU but also want some RL.....

Why not.


I'm sure some part of london wants a bit of rl, but its finding which part, and then having the ability to sell it to them which seems to be the problem.
I guess its make or break time when hughes finally pulls out.

#66 Pottsy

Pottsy
  • Coach
  • 3,536 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:09 PM

I'm sure some part of london wants a bit of rl, but its finding which part, and then having the ability to sell it to them which seems to be the problem.
I guess its make or break time when hughes finally pulls out.


We're getting to the point where (failing the emergence of another Koukash/Leneghan) the RFL needs to make a tough call over London.

Does it:

A) let nature take its course and withdraw the franchise

Or

B) Bite the bullet, accept a degree of criticism and attempt to run the franchise itself (at least in the short term).

I guess it all comes down to whether London truly is the necessity that some believe or is the lame duck other insist it's always been.

#67 Mushy

Mushy
  • Coach
  • 299 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:23 PM

Spending up to the cap should be an aspiration not a requirement. A minimum sensible spend could also be imposed with the proviso that clubs need to demonstrate that they could afford it. If they couldn't then they wouldn't be terribly competitive and perhaps shouldn't be in SL? I dunno but it would be great if every club actually thought that in a 3 period there was a chance that they could win the comp. We are miles off that at the mo, but again this should be our aspiration.

Personally I would have a cap a little less than now, with a minimum of about 2/3 of this. I would also allow each club to have one salary exempt marquee GB player each, together with perhaps a 50% salary exemption for one overseas player and one RU signing too - but again with some explanation from each club as to how they were going to afford it. This would prevent most player salary inflation, keep our top players in SL, and enable us to attract a few more new players from elsewhere to spice things up.

Just a thought.

#68 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,220 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 08:56 AM

While I can't help but agree with the marque player, instead of the RU and NRL exemptions I'd rather see some form of discount for players brought through the ranks of the club (say 20%). That way a team is encouraged to have a good junior setup, AND bring the players through.

However, I disagree the current cap should not be lowered. It's already lost a third of its value in the 10 years it hasn't been increased with inflation.

#69 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:19 AM

I am splitting my sides at the garbage posted here. how few of you understand the psyche of the successful or the wealthy sponsors/investors we crave.
They don't invest in mediocrity, they invest in visions/goals and the people driving them, hence why will always be that tough little northern sport few understand.
Our sport will die in the same way communism has unless we break the dominance of those with small minds
Two tens, with Toulouse and min cap in 2015

#70 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,578 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:27 AM

I am splitting my sides at the garbage posted here. how few of you understand the psyche of the successful or the wealthy sponsors/investors we crave.

Enlighten me sc, what gives you the authority to tell others they don't understand money men's psyche but you do?

They don't invest in mediocrity.

Ah, I think Dr Koukash needs to sit down while someone tells him what he's invested in.

rldfsignature.jpg


#71 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:44 AM

I am splitting my sides at the garbage posted here. how few of you understand the psyche of the successful or the wealthy sponsors/investors we crave.
They don't invest in mediocrity, they invest in visions/goals and the people driving them, hence why will always be that tough little northern sport few understand.
Our sport will die in the same way communism has unless we break the dominance of those with small minds
Two tens, with Toulouse and min cap in 2015


Communism was an all inclusive system just like the "Two tens" you propose.

It's hard to understand exactly what you mean but it seems you are saying open up 20 clubs for investors to come and grab and ensure P & R so the 20th. placed club (someone like Dewsbury or Hunslet) can sail all the way up to the top.

Oddly enough we ran that system from 1996 to 2006 when Hull, Huddersfield HKR, wakefield, widnes and salford started out in the second tier.

I didn't see any "wealthy sponsors or investors" immediately flock to these clubs and lavish their riches on them to drive them from mediocrity all the way to the top.

Maybe your idea is that you say to the big business world "we are opening up SL to unlimited spending, come in and spend a fortune on us".

I think that in opposition to your idea I would offer the idea that as we are a small regional game and always have been, the vast majority of people with big money to put into team sport already do it in Rugby Union and soccer.

#72 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,720 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:55 AM

There's also a world of difference between turnover and balance

Sorry, I understand turnover, but what do you mean by 'balance' in that context?
No team is an island.........................................

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

#73 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,996 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:00 AM

There seems to be this misconception that the salary cap is £1.65m and totally inflexible, but in actual fact if you study the salary cap rules then its perfectly possible (and legal) for some clubs to already be paying at least £500k more than that to players.

On top of the basic £1.65m (which doesn't include National Insurance either) there are several other ways that clubs can pay the players...

1. Appearance Bonuses - if clubs pay their players appearance money on top of their contract money then only 18 games count towards the cap, therefore clubs can pay appearance money for the other 9 SL games and other salary cap relevant games (e.g. Challenge Cup, Play Offs etc) outside of the cap

2. Win Bonuses - as above but only 14 winning games count towards the cap, anything in excess of that is excluded

3. Prize Money - if a club pays a share of prize money from SL, Challenge Cup, World Club Challenge to its players then that is exempt from the cap

4. Challenge Cup - only QF, SF and Final are counted as salary cap relevant games so effectively the clubs can pay what they like to players in rounds 4 and 5.

5. Long service - there is a £50k dispensation for any club with players with more than 10 years service

6. Internationals - each club is allowed to deduct an amount from the salary cap spend each time a player they developed in their academy is picked to represent their country, up to a maximum of £100k per season. The player doesn't even have to be at their club anymore - e.g. if Westerman was picked for England then Cas would get the exemption and not Hull.

So its not as black and white as some seem to think. There are some top clubs who could quite easily be paying 30-40% over the "cap" as it stands.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#74 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,720 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:02 AM

Personally I think that is one of the problems. No one really knows what the cap is there for. There is lots of speculation but that's it. Without that key point we can't measure the success or failure of it.

Some say it was brought in to:

  • Create a more level playing field
  • Stop clubs going bust
  • Make clubs more reliant on juniors
  • Force clubs to spend more on infrastructure (which I think is the one you were opting for)
If its any of the first 3 its failed completely. Since the junior levels have now been trashed by the RFL that's a big step towards the last one going down the river as well.

It was brought in initially to stop clubs going bust, which a number did, chiefly whilst trying to avoid relegation. There has been a fair anount of 'mission creep' though...

I quite agree about it failing though, on pretty much all levels, though, as to whether it was better or worse than its predecessor, P&R without any cap, then I'd have to say the jury is definitely still out. Maybe there is just no 'perfect' system?
No team is an island.........................................

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

#75 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:05 AM

There seems to be this misconception that the salary cap is £1.65m and totally inflexible, but in actual fact if you study the salary cap rules then its perfectly possible (and legal) for some clubs to already be paying at least £500k more than that to players.

On top of the basic £1.65m (which doesn't include National Insurance either) there are several other ways that clubs can pay the players...

1. Appearance Bonuses - if clubs pay their players appearance money on top of their contract money then only 18 games count towards the cap, therefore clubs can pay appearance money for the other 9 SL games and other salary cap relevant games (e.g. Challenge Cup, Play Offs etc) outside of the cap

2. Win Bonuses - as above but only 14 winning games count towards the cap, anything in excess of that is excluded

3. Prize Money - if a club pays a share of prize money from SL, Challenge Cup, World Club Challenge to its players then that is exempt from the cap

4. Challenge Cup - only QF, SF and Final are counted as salary cap relevant games so effectively the clubs can pay what they like to players in rounds 4 and 5.

5. Long service - there is a £50k dispensation for any club with players with more than 10 years service

6. Internationals - each club is allowed to deduct an amount from the salary cap spend each time a player they developed in their academy is picked to represent their country, up to a maximum of £100k per season. The player doesn't even have to be at their club anymore - e.g. if Westerman was picked for England then Cas would get the exemption and not Hull.

So its not as black and white as some seem to think. There are some top clubs who could quite easily be paying 30-40% over the "cap" as it stands.


Blimey :o

fabulous analysis.....

#76 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,720 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:06 AM

Not if you reduce the number of clubs and redistribute the funding accordingly.......

That's clearly a possibility, though it would have to based on a reasonable number of clubs to avoid too much repetition [would three games against all the other clubs be too many?], not to mention getting Sky's approval, as paymaster in chief they would have a very large say.
No team is an island.........................................

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

#77 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,220 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:33 AM

It was brought in initially to stop clubs going bust, which a number did, chiefly whilst trying to avoid relegation. There has been a fair anount of 'mission creep' though...

I quite agree about it failing though, on pretty much all levels, though, as to whether it was better or worse than its predecessor, P&R without any cap, then I'd have to say the jury is definitely still out. Maybe there is just no 'perfect' system?


I think we need to decide what its for, and it needs to be stated clearly. That way maybe we can make it better. (note I'm not trying to abolish it)

#78 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:40 AM

Enlighten me sc, what gives you the authority to tell others they don't understand money men's psyche but you do?
Ah, I think Dr Koukash needs to sit down while someone tells him what he's invested in.


Read the posts for your answer, the Doc will either find a way to bring success via his wealth or walk away

#79 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:59 AM

That's clearly a possibility, though it would have to based on a reasonable number of clubs to avoid too much repetition [would three games against all the other clubs be too many?]......


From 2000 to 2005 12 clubs played each other twice and after that there were six more games making six fixtures "three" match fixtures.

Attendances rose from 7555* to 8977*.

I haven't looked to closely but IIRC the extra fixtures combined a desire to...

1. Repeat the derby games for crowds
2. Avoid this fixtures between top and bottom clubs to maintain competitive games.

Superleague averaged 9431 last year.*

Take out London and Cas and you get 10,200*

Add in extra derby fixtures and you may get that up towards 11,000*

The share of SL money is £1,200,000* shared 12 ways is £1,400,000*

So a 12 club superleague may get 1500* fans more per match and £200K* more from TV per club.

Which probably makes this option the most likely for 2015?

***** If anyone doesn't like the figures do yer own.....

Edited by The Parksider, 28 March 2013 - 11:00 AM.


#80 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,720 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 11:45 AM

From 2000 to 2005 12 clubs played each other twice and after that there were six more games making six fixtures "three" match fixtures.

Attendances rose from 7555* to 8977*.

I haven't looked to closely but IIRC the extra fixtures combined a desire to...

1. Repeat the derby games for crowds
2. Avoid this fixtures between top and bottom clubs to maintain competitive games.

Superleague averaged 9431 last year.*

Take out London and Cas and you get 10,200*

Add in extra derby fixtures and you may get that up towards 11,000*

The share of SL money is £1,200,000* shared 12 ways is £1,400,000*

So a 12 club superleague may get 1500* fans more per match and £200K* more from TV per club.

Which probably makes this option the most likely for 2015?

***** If anyone doesn't like the figures do yer own.....

I haven't done any kind of audit, as such but, based on your extra £200K accruing to each remaining club if two were lost, I don't think that would be sufficient to give all the remaining SL clubs sufficient funds to pay the full cap, even at at existing levels. That is to say, I think more than a few clubs are not currently getting within £200K of the cap. I say that even with the assumption that the two who drop out would be amongst those not paying full whack, but that wouldn't necessarily be set in stone - is a club not running at full cap but standing higher in the league than one that is, actually better run and more worthy of the spot?

I think it would mean more than two dropping out - in reality, maybe three or even four. Thing is, I'm not sure a ten or eleven club SL would be really viable. Fair enough, with the championship decided by play-offs you don't have to have to play equal numbners of games against all the clubs, but you do need sufficient variety to keep it interesting or fans vote with their feet.
No team is an island.........................................

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