Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Dr K rips into Mcmanus


  • Please log in to reply
316 replies to this topic

#21 The Daddy_merged

The Daddy_merged
  • Coach
  • 1,093 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:13 AM

MK should legally challenge the salary cap rule , I'm sure if you took it to an EU sports arbitration commitee it would be thrown out. It also benefits some clubs more than others.

#22 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,621 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:27 AM

MK should legally challenge the salary cap rule , I'm sure if you took it to an EU sports arbitration commitee it would be thrown out. It also benefits some clubs more than others.

 

Which clubs do you think it benefits more than others?



#23 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:29 AM



On this point, how legal is the salary cap? I suppose MK must have looked into that though, that'd be the easiest way around it!

 

 

It's a tough one this. Can anyone explain the point of the cap? Is it to stop teams going under (which it has not done) or to make all the teams more even (which it has not done)? However, just going free for all would only seem to make each of those situations worse. The argument for getting rid of the salary cap only benefits one club more than it would have done five years ago. But they happen to be the club with the loudest owner!

 

 

I think in the case of SW, of course he is saying the present situation is fine. Wigan seem to have one of the best production lines, and will have spent a significant amount of money and time getting it that way. Why would he say 'yeah, let's let everyone circumvent that arduous process and buy their way to the top'? Even though I think wigan would be big hitters in an open market, that would (at the minute) seem to actually increase the competition at the top. I think at least Saints and Leeds, maybe Wire, would think the same.

We have no way of knowing it has not saved clubs from going under.  We can say it has not prevented any club from going under, but it might well have saved a few.  One club spending more than they can afford (hardly an unusual event) raises the wages for all players and would impact all clubs.  The problem it seems to me is still having more places in Super League than viable Super League clubs.  Perhaps, ideally, we would have a Super League with stronger clubs (even from France if needs be, but that is another argument), with a salary cap that they could all afford - but hte level they could all afford would allow them to buy the stars they are after.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#24 Teessidewire

Teessidewire
  • Coach
  • 172 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:35 AM

We have no way of knowing it has not saved clubs from going under.  We can say it has not prevented any club from going under, but it might well have saved a few.  One club spending more than they can afford (hardly an unusual event) raises the wages for all players and would impact all clubs.  The problem it seems to me is still having more places in Super League than viable Super League clubs.  Perhaps, ideally, we would have a Super League with stronger clubs (even from France if needs be, but that is another argument), with a salary cap that they could all afford - but hte level they could all afford would allow them to buy the stars they are after.

Ironically the cap has probably saved Salford from going under several times. My thought is that we need to increase the cap, as it's been the same for years. After that it needs annual increases to at least keep in line with inflation. 



#25 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:38 AM

Ironically the cap has probably saved Salford from going under several times. My thought is that we need to increase the cap, as it's been the same for years. After that it needs annual increases to at least keep in line with inflation. 

To increase the cap, we need clubs that can afford an increased cap and we still struggle to find enough clubs that can cope with the level set as it is (I will soon be as popular as Parksider).


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#26 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,621 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:56 AM

We have no way of knowing it has not saved clubs from going under.  We can say it has not prevented any club from going under, but it might well have saved a few.  One club spending more than they can afford (hardly an unusual event) raises the wages for all players and would impact all clubs.  The problem it seems to me is still having more places in Super League than viable Super League clubs.  Perhaps, ideally, we would have a Super League with stronger clubs (even from France if needs be, but that is another argument), with a salary cap that they could all afford - but hte level they could all afford would allow them to buy the stars they are after.

 

I kind of make that point at the end: 'However, just going free for all would only seem to make each of those situations worse'. Admittedly, you phrase is more clear than mine.

 

I see where you are coming from about the number of teams argument. But how much contraction would you be happy with?



#27 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:17 AM

Fans are great at insisting owners spend loads of money, but then moan if tickets cost more than a tenner.
 

 

Great line. One of Rugby League's bigger problems in a nutshell.


SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#28 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 399 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:29 AM

dont understand your last line. Who are these journeymen blocking votes?

Perhaps, just perhaps it was the right decision.

Club owners who don't want to offer others the opportunity for reaching a higher level of investment, ambition and competition with others in the marketplace..

Perhaps,  just perhaps it wasn't the right decision.



#29 C H Calthrop

C H Calthrop
  • Coach
  • 399 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:47 AM

Great line. One of Rugby League's bigger problems in a nutshell.

Low profile sponsors and resultant low income from sponsorship used to offset ticket prices is a more important problem in a nut shell. Low profile game low profile sponsors. Marquee players, higher profile game higher profile sponsors....... 



#30 Spidey

Spidey
  • Coach
  • 479 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:59 AM

Koukash needs to make his mind on a few few things, one of his statements was indicating he wanted the clubs to have more of say in running the game.... then something goes to a vote, the majority (of clubs) don't want the Marquee rule.  Then he kicks off

 

Does he want the clubs running the game or does he want run it himself?


Edited by Spidey, 11 July 2014 - 09:00 AM.


#31 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:21 AM

I kind of make that point at the end: 'However, just going free for all would only seem to make each of those situations worse'. Admittedly, you phrase is more clear than mine.

 

I see where you are coming from about the number of teams argument. But how much contraction would you be happy with?

Indeed, and I only intended to disagree with one aspect of your very reasonable post.

 

Contraction would be unfortunate, but I fear it is reality.  I should declare that I am on the more radical end of the fervent expansionist wing.  However, it is not because I want to stick pins in a map, but because I think the present structure is stuck in the past and causes major problems.

 

Hull

Leeds

Les Catalans

Salford

St Helens

Toulouse

Warrington

Wigan

- plus maybe up to two others.  

 

It is a list brutally based on where the finance for a club is and little else.  Clearly, a things could develop in London and a rich man in Salford could change his mind, Wakefield could get their act together.  I am clearly not in a position to make the calls.  The question is what state would Super League be in with a £2.6million salary cap or a free for all, and though I can not be certain I suspect it would be in sorry shape.

 

I would much prefer we have 100+ viable full time clubs like soccer.  


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#32 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 4,136 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:21 AM

Whether it should come in or not the marquee allowance should be a decision that is made by the RFL board of directors. How can you have clear thinking where clubs have such a vested interest either way. If you were a smaller club you wouldn't want the potential gap to open up and if you had spent a fortune on your youth set-up you wouldn't want to fast-track a big spending rival.

 

I don't think this is about the competition it is about the quality of our game here in the UK. If a marquee was brought in under strict financial control (e.g. you had to present a stable financial case to the RFL board to be granted one) then it could see players like Billy Slater and Greg Inglis finishing their careers here. That has to be good for the competition.



#33 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,484 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:24 AM

To increase the cap, we need clubs that can afford an increased cap and we still struggle to find enough clubs that can cope with the level set as it is (I will soon be as popular as Parksider).

 

Cheers Bob, my support for a 10 club SL  with a central business plan and close financial control naturally puts me at odds with 27 clubs fans and all traditionalists and P & R merchants. But it's the only sensible business plan we have left.



#34 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:35 AM

Low profile sponsors and resultant low income from sponsorship used to offset ticket prices is a more important problem in a nut shell.

 

Well it's not an unrelated issue, because where are you going to get the money from in the first place to buy these marquee players. You have to start somewhere. Like Dave said, it's very easy to spend other people's money in writing. Personally I don't think the marquee rule would fix any of these problems.


SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#35 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,944 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:39 AM

If people like Koukash want to spend beyond the cap I'd let them go for it personally, I see no benefit in holding back, money doesn't guarantee success and if he ends up paying out transfer fees as well as big wages it opens up the opportunity for shrewd clubs to cash in and perhaps prosper themselves.

 

What I would say though, is if he or anyone else wants to sign a player once they've hit the agreed cap limit, then the total value of that players contract should be paid over to a central fund, then we can avoid mad cap fly by night sorts from landing clubs with mountains of debts before swanning off into the sunset.  The centrally held money would be repaid to the players club over time as the contract runs down, but any interest made on this cash would be retained by the central body and be used to fund development for the game as a whole and be considered a "luxury tax".



#36 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:12 AM

If people like Koukash want to spend beyond the cap I'd let them go for it personally, I see no benefit in holding back, money doesn't guarantee success and if he ends up paying out transfer fees as well as big wages it opens up the opportunity for shrewd clubs to cash in and perhaps prosper themselves.

 

What I would say though, is if he or anyone else wants to sign a player once they've hit the agreed cap limit, then the total value of that players contract should be paid over to a central fund, then we can avoid mad cap fly by night sorts from landing clubs with mountains of debts before swanning off into the sunset.  The centrally held money would be repaid to the players club over time as the contract runs down, but any interest made on this cash would be retained by the central body and be used to fund development for the game as a whole and be considered a "luxury tax".

One club spending high causes wage inflation, which affects all clubs.


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013


#37 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,944 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:31 AM

One club spending high causes wage inflation, which affects all clubs.

And only those stupid enough to spend what they don't have will suffer - pretty much as they do today.



#38 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,621 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:44 AM

And only those stupid enough to spend what they don't have will suffer - pretty much as they do today.

 

But then you end up in a situation like it was without any salary cap... I can see that one marquee signing per team might act to prevent that.



#39 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,944 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:56 AM

But then you end up in a situation like it was without any salary cap... I can see that one marquee signing per team might act to prevent that.

I'd have no objection if people want to try the idea of the marquee signing and see how it goes, it strikes me as being more of a shuffling of the deckchairs on the titanic than significant change though.

 

The situation pre-cap wasn't as bleak as people make out if your reference was in terms of competition, yes Wigan may have cleaned up, but go back and look at some of those league tables 93/94 springs to mind, 3 clubs tied on level points at the top of the table, 92/93 we had just the two teams tied at the top.  If you mean pre-cap clubs were financial basket cases, well some seemingly seem to have managed to carry that on under the cap!



#40 Bob8

Bob8
  • Coach
  • 9,593 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 11:04 AM

And only those stupid enough to spend what they don't have will suffer - pretty much as they do today.

The problem is that they are not the only ones that suffer.  If there are a group of roughly equal clubs and one spends far more than it can afford, they either win everything and the other clubs win nothing, or the other clubs try and compete.  Either scenario damages the competition as a whole.  In many forms of business it would be consdiered predatory.


Edited by Bob8, 11 July 2014 - 11:05 AM.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

”I am all for expansion but not to start and string the teams all over the place” – stewpot01 – 11 July 2014

"2013 is on course to be one of the most disastrous in its history." - Creditwhereitsdews - 2nd January 2013





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users