Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Marwan Koukash - Set to ignore the salary cap!


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#141 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:24 AM

Isn't this happening already ?

No.

What's happening IMHO is some club chairmen are stopping spending but not walking away yet.

If what will happen is a 10 club Superleague THEN the chairmen of the clubs who won't get in may very well walk away.

If something happened like 16 club SL salary cap £1,200,000 then they may all stay.

The future structure of the pro game is well up in the air and so you cannot blame businessmen for suspending investment when they do not know under what conditions they will be investing under.

#142 Red Willow

Red Willow
  • Coach
  • 4,681 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:48 AM

I'm sitting on the fence a little with the good Doctor.

 

He is great to have at Salford, and as others have said he is looking at what makes the fans happy, including the parking at Barton. He will restructure the whole company.

 

This week he won the Chester cup, and the BBC described him as the owner of Salford City Reds, not something we have seen before.

 

Long term he will be good for the game, but he needs to learn how to deal with the press.

 

He has already talked about the facilities at Barton adn improving them, all of this is long term ambitions.

 

We need the cap increasing to pay off the poor signings and sign a better player or 2.

 

I think we all believe that clubs have methods of beating the cap including the deal Sculthorpe had where personal sponsorship doesn't count.



#143 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,243 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 11:53 AM

I like him as well.

This is why a revision of the 1995 model will work. Other investors will happily buy a "super club" and fund an increased cap (and possibly start-up costs if needed), TV will also like it and after much huffing and puffing on here the vast majority of fans will realise it will be great and will pack our stadiums to watch NRL-type rugby league.

Dr K would then I hope be happy, although whether he has enough "socialist millionaire" spirit about him I'm not sure. But I would hope that owning one of an elite 12 or so clubs - all of whom pay big bucks, have marquee players etc. and thus meaning his club could just as easily finish top as bottom - in a better, more cash-rich competition would be enough for him. I do slightly worry that he has more of a Man Utd "blast the competition in a free market stylee" vibe about him. But we'll see.

For sure, the game is better with him than without him.

#144 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:23 PM

I like him as well.

This is why a revision of the 1995 model will work. Other investors will happily buy a "super club" and fund an increased cap (and possibly start-up costs if needed), TV will also like it and after much huffing and puffing on here the vast majority of fans will realise it will be great and will pack our stadiums to watch NRL-type rugby league.

Dr K would then I hope be happy, although whether he has enough "socialist millionaire" spirit about him I'm not sure. But I would hope that owning one of an elite 12 or so clubs - all of whom pay big bucks, have marquee players etc. and thus meaning his club could just as easily finish top as bottom - in a better, more cash-rich competition would be enough for him. I do slightly worry that he has more of a Man Utd "blast the competition in a free market stylee" vibe about him. But we'll see.

For sure, the game is better with him than without him.

I like your positive thinking post.

However not sure why you believe ""Other investors will happily buy a "super club" and fund an increased cap (and possibly start-up costs if needed)""

also not sure about "an elite 12 or so clubs - all of whom pay big bucks, have marquee players"......

Nobody jumped in to lavish big bucks on the biggest club in SL 1995 to 2005

And who are all these "marquee" players and where are they coming from?

Is your idea that a series of mega rich investors will come over the hill buy up the elite clubs and outbid Union and NRL for players by so much they all come to League???

#145 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:32 PM


And who are all these "marquee" players and where are they coming from?
 

 

You're right, there's only one Kevin Brown.  We can't split him 12 ways.

 

You make a good point, one thing that seems to almost always be missed is that if you have a league of 12 you still have 11 losers at the end of the year.  Not every club can be a glittering success every year.  If we go to 12, how long before we hear the call for 10 or 8?



#146 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:52 PM

You make a good point, one thing that seems to almost always be missed is that if you have a league of 12 you still have 11 losers at the end of the year.  Not every club can be a glittering success every year.  If we go to 12, how long before we hear the call for 10 or 8?

Sorry Larry but IMHO and with respect you make a bad point.

If the NRL run at 16 clubs you still have 15 losers and how long before that becomes 12, 10, 8 etc.

It's not having just 14 clubs that would do for Superleague, it's having 14 clubs of which only half can win the SL grand final or win the Challenge cup, and another half who have no money, can't develop adequate players and who can't attract the fans because they know full well their clubs are going nowhere.

Edited by The Parksider, 10 May 2013 - 12:52 PM.


#147 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:56 PM

Sorry Larry but IMHO and with respect you make a bad point.

If the NRL run at 16 clubs you still have 15 losers and how long before that becomes 12, 10, 8 etc.

It's not having just 14 clubs that would do for Superleague, it's having 14 clubs of which only half can win the SL grand final or win the Challenge cup, and another half who have no money, can't develop adequate players and who can't attract the fans because they know full well their clubs are going nowhere.

 

Don't apologise for disagreeing.  The NRL is a fine and stable structure, Aussies are used to having just the top tier detached from the rest, we on the other hand are not, and for us to accept the NRL structure means we first have to accept that there is no clear and sporting route to the top.  I don't accept that, and many others do not.

 

Only one team can win the superleague, and only one team the cup.  That could be the same team in some years.  Until those at the top act with the best interests of the game then we'll repeat this circus every few years.  You don't make the weak stronger by kicking them in the face every time you fancy a bit more money. If you think that Leeds/Wigan et al are interested in a level competition then you're very much mistaken.


Edited by Larry the Leit, 10 May 2013 - 01:09 PM.


#148 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:15 PM

Don't apologise for disagreeing.  The NRL is a fine and stable structure, Aussies are used to having just the top tier detached from the rest, we on the other hand are not, and for us to accept the NRL structure means we first have to accept that there is no clear and sporting route to the top.  I don't accept that, and many others do not.

Your welcome to tell me that there's "no clear and sporting route to the top. I don't accept that, and many others do not".

But to get a clear route you need to get the top CC clubs on the same money as bottom SL clubs.You do accept that SL clubs turn over an average of about £6,000,000 don't you?And that CC clubs turn over an average of £750,000.They are eight time bigger and so the route stops dead at the top of the championship.

It's not "sport" either to play professionals against semi professionals. It turns people off - see cup attendances. It's not sport either when Hudgell pumps £500K a year year on year for what? Seven years to manage bottom half of SL then give up.

If you have a clear sporting route to the top I'd like you to set it out.

The proposed competition in which Koukash's Salford (ability to pay players millions)will take on Leigh (ability to not even pay wages on time and no bonuses at all) in a competition to decide who goes into SL the year after. Is that sporting?

#149 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,435 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:00 PM

I think that the clubs cant risk behaving in this manner. Imagine a club adopting this policy and then the player in a few years time falling out with the club for one reason or another. That player then has ammunition to tell the authorities of his circumstances.

 

There is no way a club would go about adopting these policies. The cap is there and the clubs are forced to abide by it or face the very likelihood that they will be caught and punished.

Yep, it's pretty much my thinking tbh.

 

I think either everybody is at it or it happens very little if at all.

 

Players move on all the time to other clubs, what is to stop a player from Club A moving to Club B and discussing this (let's be honest, if you believe people on here, players regularly tell people about their dodgy dealings). It would surely then be very easy to provide some form of evidence to challenge the clubs.

Often, dodgy dealings like this are blown open by whistleblowers, surely we would have seen a big case of this now. No doubt people will say 'the RFL ignore the claims' - but they have punished clubs in the past, and the Aussie game has come down big style on big clubs in the past.



#150 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:39 PM

Your welcome to tell me that there's "no clear and sporting route to the top. I don't accept that, and many others do not".

But to get a clear route you need to get the top CC clubs on the same money as bottom SL clubs.You do accept that SL clubs turn over an average of about £6,000,000 don't you?And that CC clubs turn over an average of £750,000.They are eight time bigger and so the route stops dead at the top of the championship.

It's not "sport" either to play professionals against semi professionals. It turns people off - see cup attendances. It's not sport either when Hudgell pumps £500K a year year on year for what? Seven years to manage bottom half of SL then give up.

If you have a clear sporting route to the top I'd like you to set it out.

The proposed competition in which Koukash's Salford (ability to pay players millions)will take on Leigh (ability to not even pay wages on time and no bonuses at all) in a competition to decide who goes into SL the year after. Is that sporting?

 

 

 

I'll accept your turnover figures as read, I think that if we're going to truly have a SL2 then we must fund it EQUALLY and give it the same profile and distrubution of TV games on Sky as SL1, otherwise we simply replicate SL and the existing championship arrangements.  That isn't going to happen without more money being added to the pot though, so if it isn't then we shouldn't mess with it too much as it will be to the detriment of the game as a whole.

 

The fact that Hudgell has thrown money at HKR instead of building a solid base/squad and has finished consistently in the bottom half is more about poor business practice (signing ###### players and coaches) than it is about anything else. Andrew Glover hasn't spent any money at Wakefield, but yet has grown the crowds and hence the club's income significantly. Sport and business are mixed intrinsically, but brainpower is still often more than a match of cash and that's a kind of sporting success that I like. Like sports clubs, businesses are not guaranteed success, and if success is a top half finish, then by definition then only half can be a success in any league.

 

There was a clear sporting route, before superleague. The passage of time has done what many predicted that it would do; it's widened the gap to a chasm. Much as I've always been against licensing, I do consider that the work and effort that some clubs have gone to to comply with licensing should not be stamped down and replaced by this new nonsense proposal and that much of it would never have taken place without licensing. I'm dissapointed that Featherstone seem to be accepting a half way house which will cripple them and others over time.

 

Koukcash's millions Vs Leigh is not sporting, and if you read what I've put on a number of threads then you'll see that I think it's a daft idea which will harm ALL participating clubs.

 

Well I certainly wouldn't cite mis-matches between non superleague clubs and superleague clubs for the poorer than expected cup crowds we have seen in recent years. I think the reasons are more to do with the fact that TV is king and our broadcasting partner bangs on and on about their product and only their product – Superleague has become the be all and end all, perhaps it's time the RFL looked at how it distributes the prize money to clubs to insensitive real effort in the most famous trophy in our sport. The BBC who have the rights for the cup don't pay it anymore than lip service. I love the cup, but I feel that the RFL really have to work on its promotion. I occasionally attend the grand final, but I always attend the challenge cup final. I can't see that changing for me anytime soon.


Edited by Larry the Leit, 10 May 2013 - 02:47 PM.


#151 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:53 PM

The fact that Hudgell has thrown money at HKR instead of building a solid base/squad and has finished consistently in the bottom half is more about poor business practice (signing ###### players and coaches) than it is about anything else. Andrew Glover hasn't spent any money at Wakefield, but yet has grown the crowds and hence the club's income significantly. Sport and business are mixed intrinsically, but brainpower is still often more than a match of cash and that's a kind of sporting success that I like.

How would Andrew Glover have got on with Wakefield Trinity if there had been a Wakefield FC just across the Calder attracting 11,000 fans??

Edited by The Parksider, 10 May 2013 - 08:56 PM.


#152 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:09 PM

There was a clear sporting route, before superleague. The passage of time has done what many predicted that it would do; it's widened the gap to a chasm. Much as I've always been against licensing, I do consider that the work and effort that some clubs have gone to to comply with licensing should not be stamped down and replaced by this new nonsense proposal

The SKY money paid to SL and not CC widened the chasm, the small clubs lucky to be in SL could not compete whilst big clubs unlucky to be on a down at the time the cut was made, made it back to the big time at the small clubs expense and now that's that. A gulf of gulf of Mexico proportions.

No sporting route at all now. Only money will bridge the gap.

As for all the work clubs have gone to to comply with licensing, what I find ridiculous is that the RFL dangle this stupid carrot which the poor CC clubs will cheerfully chase as long as they are not asked to answer the big question.....

SL needs a £6,000,000 turnover, SKY and increased crowds will give a CC club £2,000,000 more....

So where are the other £millions coming from?

Nowhere as far as Eagles and Leigh are concerned.

Mr. Nahaboo at Fev, Mr. Abbott at Halifax - allegedly.

The sporting route is dead IMHO of course.....

#153 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 09:40 PM

How would Andrew Glover have got on with Wakefield Trinity if there had been a Wakefield FC just across the Calder attracting 11,000 fans??

Just to be clear, in this scenario would Wakefield have also increased its population by about 250%?

#154 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:17 PM

How would Andrew Glover have got on with Wakefield Trinity if there had been a Wakefield FC just across the Calder attracting 11,000 fans??

 

I don't know.  I'm also not convinced that you have any idea where the river calder is.

 

Such is life.

 

Just to be clear, in this scenario would Wakefield have also increased its population by about 250%?

 

See above.



#155 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:27 PM

Just to be clear, in this scenario would Wakefield have also increased its population by about 250%?

The point is if you have not got it clear is that it's hard to revive a business like HKR when you have direct competition over the river.

When there is no direct competition in the city you have an advantage.

#156 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:29 PM

I'm also not convinced that you have any idea where the river calder is.

I'm not convinced you have the wherewithall to debate the issue.

#157 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:49 AM

I'm not convinced you have the wherewithall to debate the issue.

 

That's pretty rich.  From what I've seen of your own debating tactics it appears that your opinions vary in the wind, and serve only to needlessly prolong threads unnecessarily by raking up discredited pieces of argument so that we can "go round again" and by blindly ignoring anything that either disagrees with whatever crusade you happen to be on or accepting that on some issues other people may be far better informed than you are.

 

In relation to the hypothetical issue you raise, do you know what?  I think you may are right, I'm not convinced that I have the wherewithal to debate the intricacies of what Wakefield Trinity's position would be like if there was a soccer club "at the other side of the Calder".  The FACT is that there isn't a soccer club matching your scenario, and there hasn't been in the 140 years or so since Trinity were formed, so it's a pointless waste of energy.

 

However, according to you we already have Featherstone and Castleford to "compete" with for fans (which except for within a few frontier villages we do not), and since you can't get to grips with the counter arguments on that, I see no reason to waste energy debating with you what would happen if Manchester United relocated Old Trafford brick by brick to Horbury Junction or St Johns square.


Edited by Larry the Leit, 13 May 2013 - 08:52 AM.


#158 foozler

foozler
  • Coach
  • 960 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:54 AM

Some perspective on the current salary cap level in RL.

 

 

The Yorkshire Post this morning has a report on Saturday's RU Championship play off match between Newcastle Falcons and Leeds Carnegie. So second tier of English club RU in a competition which currently has no title sponsor.

 

According to the YP, Newcastle's playing budget for the season now closing was £4m and Leeds Carnegie's was £2m. In the article Hetherington does mention the 'mania' in rugby union for throwing cash around at players but nonetheless he indicates that the Carnegie budget will be the same for next season.

 

Now I know that RU clubs need bigger squads, but I am astounded that clubs in the second tier of English RU can have bigger playing budgets than SL, and that Carnegie can, that is are allowed to and can afford to, spend more than the reigning SL Champions. 


Edited by foozler, 13 May 2013 - 08:55 AM.


#159 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:16 AM

That's pretty rich.

So is telling me I have no idea where the River Calder is.

We can exchange views or we can exchange derogatory remarks.

#160 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,991 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:25 AM

Some perspective on the current salary cap level in RL.

According to the YP, Newcastle's playing budget for the season now closing was £4m and Leeds Carnegie's was £2m.I am astounded that clubs in the second tier of English RU can have bigger playing budgets than SL, and that Carnegie can, that is are allowed to and can afford to, spend more than the reigning SL Champions.

Well I don't know who bankrolls Newcastle (nor do I know where the river Calder is) but Paul Caddick may bankroll Leeds Carnegie. That these people spend millions in a second tier may be because the first tier from top to bottom is already oversubscribed by benevolent chairmen.

In our game the benevolent chairmen stop half way down Superleague.It's probably proportionately correct that a national game can throw up so many more players to buy and chairmen to buy them.

An M62 league may throw up much less resource, don't you think??.

This is Just IMHO and if the wind changes I'll let you know what I think then!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users