Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
John Drake

Salary Cap

201 posts in this topic

The salary cap has proved to be nonsense as they have found in Australia.

It's unworkable and unmangeable. The NRL never found out about Canterbury or Melbourne and have no idea if others are doing the same. The RFL have fewer controls then the NRL and theirs have been proved to be useless.

The more equal competition has not been provided by the SC but by SKY TV money. Without SKY we would have four or five full time clubs and the rest would be part time. We have fourteen full time clubs and that is the reason for a more equal comp.

As for a league that is likely to be won by any club, that is total nonsense.

We may well have a fourth Leeds v Saints GF which says it all!

The NRL are to now dump the SC over the next two or three years and will trial a replacment system next year. I do hope our RFL/SL will trial a replacement for our SC that reflects the needs of RL here and not just replicate the NRL system simply because the Australians are doing it and therefore so must we

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The salary cap has proved to be nonsense as they have found in Australia.

It's unworkable and unmangeable.

2. The more equal competition has not been provided by the SC but by SKY TV money.

3. As for a league that is likely to be won by any club, that is total nonsense.

4. The NRL are to now dump the SC over the next two or three years and will trial a replacment system next year. I do hope our RFL/SL will trial a replacement for our SC that reflects the needs of RL here and not just replicate the NRL system simply because the Australians are doing it and therefore so must we

1. Of course it works - the top clubs on the whole are reigned in, of course it's manageable - clubs are caught and punished. If you want to argue it's not a perfect system then suggest what is?

2. You are right and for me we should ask SKY what they want if they are the paymasters. If they want an even competition then the salary cap stays and the SKY money could also be distributed unevenly. However maybe SKY back the cap behind closed doors so it could be an academic argument.

3. Like the expansion clubs crowds and home grown players they will always be hit over the head for the lack of them in their formative years by supporters of clubs who have been around 130 years. Similarly the cap has been applied to a series of clubs only a few of whom can stand on their own two feet financially, clubs who are fledglings, clubs who are in bad grounds and clubs who don't have sugar daddies etc.

Easy to condemn a system that can't yet work across the board because of other problems.

4. So what's the system you advocate??? If you want to bad mouth and remove a system suggest something? All down the years you have just left the argument as "The cap should be abolished" even Boogie has shifted to admitting wage inflation would be the result and a small clique of clubs playing out a league within a league.

We have that now, but the cap is there to help reign it in and in time when other clubs get on their feet we will see a more even competition.

The development of SL as a league of 14 big clubs all on full cap and all bringing through good juniors of equal quality isn't a 10 year thing and maybe isn't a 20 year thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the Wiganers condemning the Salary Cap, you do realise SL was under the stewardship of Lindsay when it was introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cap should stay but we also need a draft (for non-homegrown players) to stop the best players migrating to the best teams. That way we'd have a fair spread. AT the moment the best teams are hogging the best players and are also capturing the best foreigners.

If the foreigners don't want to play for the likes of Cas, Salford etc then they should not be allowed to come

I assume that you exclude those who qualify to play without visas, or are you advocating breaching employment law too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mo was Chairman of Wigan following his return in 1999.

He might have been elected by other SL clubs as chairman of SL but that hardly compares with his former job as RFL boss.

As to replacing the SC, I've always been against restrictions on RL wether it is the SC or the insane 20/20 rule which is now thankfully in the bin.

Why would I want to replace a failed system with another?

If anything then we should go with the soccer idea of clubs making a profit over a rolling three year period.

The SC was originally brought in to stop club getting into financial difficulties. Although that idea has long been dumped, if all clubs had to make a profit and did we would have secure clubs and a secure sport.

In reality the RFL will jump at some idea if the NRL dump their SC. I just don't want an Aussie idea that is designed for them being implanted in our game when it may not suit us just because the clubs haven't been up to speed in replacing the SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap was never brought in to affect just Wigan. Wigan's long period of dominance was mainly down to the fact that most sides were part time, and Wigan had the support to allow their players to play full time.

It is a fact that if a club has extra money coming in they will break the rules to pay over the cap, it happens in all walks of life, that if we can get round the rules to get a better product then we will do it.

To put it in its best light ,it is a system which leads to making the league more attractive by leveling the playing field, but we are always going to have clubs that will break the rules, by obtaining the best side they can get. If you are a supporter of a side that has made your club better, are you going to complain? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If all clubs had to make a profit and did we would have secure clubs and a secure sport.

Is that what you are suggesting then?

How do Quins make a profit? Probably by fielding a semi pro side of Londoners.

How would HKR make a profit given they lose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cap should stay but we also need a draft (for non-homegrown players) to stop the best players migrating to the best teams. That way we'd have a fair spread. AT the moment the best teams are hogging the best players and are also capturing the best foreigners.

If the foreigners don't want to play for the likes of Cas, Salford etc then they should not be allowed to come

I actually like that idea - overseas players declare availability to play in SL rather than negotiating with an individual club, each player has a guaranteed value agreed with the league, lowest team in the league get first pick and so forth.

Just like a draft in American Sport it could create the possibility of trades between teams - i.e, existing players at big clubs traded for a higher pick based on need. Whats not to like? Great TV potential and exposure for the game annually - I'd also tie the free agency of British players into it, rather than having a signing deadline in season.

Without an independent method of nuturing players like the US Universities being in place, we will never have a realistic spread of home grown talent, but an overseas / free agency draft would be the next best option to create a more even competition allied to the SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap the salary cap. It's a restraint on investment and is an excuse for the less inventive and progressive clubs to hang off the coat tails of the better clubs.

Turn it on it's head and have a debt cap instead. Clubs are only allowed to run a serviceable deficit at x percentage of their annual turnover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the best player you have ever seen?

How much would he earn under the cap restrictions?

Would this be enough to keep him in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scrap the salary cap. It's a restraint on investment and is an excuse for the less inventive and progressive clubs to hang off the coat tails of the better clubs.

Releasing Moran. McManus, Lenegan, Hudgell, you name them, to """""invest""""" more in Superleague in reality means inviting them to place unrestrained bids on the best players.

And thus wage inflation is created. A player Superleague got for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Releasing Moran. McManus, Lenegan, Hudgell, you name them, to """""invest""""" more in Superleague in reality means inviting them to place unrestrained bids on the best players.

And thus wage inflation is created. A player Superleague got for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should any investor be restricted by anything other than their own financial resources?

Because the investor may decide to create wage inflation within the organisation.

The organisation is a business called Superleague whose main investor is SKY and the business is a collective of 14 clubs with a series of policy aims, these include......

1. Nice shiney grounds that attract people to pay gate money

2. The development of young players to play the game and become pro's

3. Quality marketing departments who add value to the business

4. An even competition such that all clubs pay the same wages and Sky have good games to show

Investors are no good whatsoever to a business unless they invest in the policies and business aims of the business itself.

If I have a retail chain of shops and my "investor" decides to build a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that what you are suggesting then?

How do Quins make a profit? Probably by fielding a semi pro side of Londoners.

How would HKR make a profit given they lose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Of course it works - the top clubs on the whole are reigned in, of course it's manageable - clubs are caught and punished. If you want to argue it's not a perfect system then suggest what is?

2. You are right and for me we should ask SKY what they want if they are the paymasters. If they want an even competition then the salary cap stays and the SKY money could also be distributed unevenly. However maybe SKY back the cap behind closed doors so it could be an academic argument.

3. Like the expansion clubs crowds and home grown players they will always be hit over the head for the lack of them in their formative years by supporters of clubs who have been around 130 years. Similarly the cap has been applied to a series of clubs only a few of whom can stand on their own two feet financially, clubs who are fledglings, clubs who are in bad grounds and clubs who don't have sugar daddies etc.

Easy to condemn a system that can't yet work across the board because of other problems.

4. So what's the system you advocate??? If you want to bad mouth and remove a system suggest something? All down the years you have just left the argument as "The cap should be abolished" even Boogie has shifted to admitting wage inflation would be the result and a small clique of clubs playing out a league within a league.

We have that now, but the cap is there to help reign it in and in time when other clubs get on their feet we will see a more even competition.

The development of SL as a league of 14 big clubs all on full cap and all bringing through good juniors of equal quality isn't a 10 year thing and maybe isn't a 20 year thing.

Excuse me but Boogie hasn't shifted to admitting anything - I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never supported the cap and I never will support the cap. Rugby League cannot prosper in a free market context whilst it continues to behave like soviet communists. All my arguments against the cap have been ridiculed in the past but they will all now be trotted out by the self-interested to justify why it should now go. My interest lies in why this dramatic change-of-heart should occur at this point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me but Boogie hasn't shifted to admitting anything - I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never supported the cap and I never will support the cap. Rugby League cannot prosper in a free market context whilst it continues to behave like soviet communists. All my arguments against the cap have been ridiculed in the past but they will all now be trotted out by the self-interested to justify why it should now go. My interest lies in why this dramatic change-of-heart should occur at this point in time.

Didn't Wigan almost go bust in the pre-cap days, only to be saved by DW?

Wigan's dominance almost killed RL pre-cap and almost killed themselves. Remving the cap would be the death knell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Wigan almost go bust in the pre-cap days, only to be saved by DW?

Wigan's dominance almost killed RL pre-cap and almost killed themselves. Remving the cap would be the death knell

Jesus, I find myself agreeing with Lobbygobbler!!!

:O:O:O:O

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Wigan almost go bust in the pre-cap days, only to be saved by DW?

Wigan's dominance almost killed RL pre-cap and almost killed themselves. Remving the cap would be the death knell

No, actually.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the investor may decide to create wage inflation within the organisation.

The organisation is a business called Superleague whose main investor is SKY and the business is a collective of 14 clubs with a series of policy aims, these include......

1. Nice shiney grounds that attract people to pay gate money

2. The development of young players to play the game and become pro's

3. Quality marketing departments who add value to the business

4. An even competition such that all clubs pay the same wages and Sky have good games to show

Investors are no good whatsoever to a business unless they invest in the policies and business aims of the business itself.

If I have a retail chain of shops and my "investor" decides to build a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me but Boogie hasn't shifted to admitting anything - I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never supported the cap and I never will support the cap. Rugby League cannot prosper in a free market context whilst it continues to behave like soviet communists. All my arguments against the cap have been ridiculed in the past but they will all now be trotted out by the self-interested to justify why it should now go. My interest lies in why this dramatic change-of-heart should occur at this point in time.

:O sorry!

Can you set out how RL will prosper in a free market context.

If you can explain it, maybe I will go with you on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How has the salary cap forced any club to build a new ground?

2. How would having no salary cap allow clubs to have squads bigger than 25?

3. How would having no salary cap stop a club marketing itself?

4. Marketing is not driven by anything other than a desire to increase revenue and brand awareness. e.g Bradford Bulls.

5. How does not having a salary cap prevent player development?

6. It is impossible to create an even competition.

7. How many sides outside the top 3 have won the Grand Final?

8. A debt cap would prevent your scenario of going off on an investment tangent and ruining the business?

1. It hasn't.

2. it wouldn't but the richest clubs would have the best 25

3. Wage inflation takes away money for marketing unless your director has a bottomless wallet

4. Marketing is indeed a business tool

5. It doesn't but when you can buy anyone you like who needs a youth set up ala Warrington

6. In theory you are right but the cap has created a much more even competition.

7. Not many but the ones that have have been succesful in youth development - only very recently has the penny dropped with the rest - and some will catch up in time.

8. I'd like you to extend your idea of a debt cap.

What I feel is that if you move to a "free market" again then those clubs with money and rich backers will fly out far in front of the rest, and forever more buy up the best players and polarise the Superleague.

That's how Wigan got their success so there's a historical model. This is how the premier league has a league within a league - rich men unfettered.

If RL clubs at the top can get their wallets out then you are looking at a league of blowout scores with the top clubs winning all the time. Will that increase their crowds? Wigan, Hull, Leeds, Saints have big crowds and win a lot already so I don't see it creating more interest do you?

And where do the clubs below them go?? They would develop players for the rich clubs to pick them off for their mini league - so would they bother??

What would the fans of the also rans do - stay at home???

It is actually easy to argue the cap is not working. LMS goes to Saints anyway and Saints are always in the final.

But that is for OTHER reasons. The cap will work once all clubs have good junior development and can attract gates (and have the inconme topped up by directors) that means they can afford full cap.

It will also work when the best imports don't shun the bottom clubs to be at clubs winning medals.

Try to pick my argument as much as you can, but at some point Ted, Boogie and you should surely extend your point to how it would actually work in practice.

Ted says a profit system will work - but doesn't explain it

Boogie says a free market will work but doesn't explain it.

Please explain the debt cap and taking the clubs current financial state as a basis can you extend how Superleague would move forward under your Debt Cap idea??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the simple way to look at any salary cap debate is to exclude those fans whose clubs are penalized by it

so thats all the wigan and leeds fans then, and many wire and saints fans too.

its similar to getting an opinion on franchising from a fan of a club outside SL.

taking out club bias and then determining whats good for the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. It hasn't.

2. it wouldn't but the richest clubs would have the best 25

3. Wage inflation takes away money for marketing unless your director has a bottomless wallet

4. Marketing is indeed a business tool

5. It doesn't but when you can buy anyone you like who needs a youth set up ala Warrington

6. In theory you are right but the cap has created a much more even competition.

7. Not many but the ones that have have been succesful in youth development - only very recently has the penny dropped with the rest - and some will catch up in time.

8. I'd like you to extend your idea of a debt cap.

What I feel is that if you move to a "free market" again then those clubs with money and rich backers will fly out far in front of the rest, and forever more buy up the best players and polarise the Superleague.

That's how Wigan got their success so there's a historical model. This is how the premier league has a league within a league - rich men unfettered.

If RL clubs at the top can get their wallets out then you are looking at a league of blowout scores with the top clubs winning all the time. Will that increase their crowds? Wigan, Hull, Leeds, Saints have big crowds and win a lot already so I don't see it creating more interest do you?

And where do the clubs below them go?? They would develop players for the rich clubs to pick them off for their mini league - so would they bother??

What would the fans of the also rans do - stay at home???

It is actually easy to argue the cap is not working. LMS goes to Saints anyway and Saints are always in the final.

But that is for OTHER reasons. The cap will work once all clubs have good junior development and can attract gates (and have the inconme topped up by directors) that means they can afford full cap.

It will also work when the best imports don't shun the bottom clubs to be at clubs winning medals.

Try to pick my argument as much as you can, but at some point Ted, Boogie and you should surely extend your point to how it would actually work in practice.

Ted says a profit system will work - but doesn't explain it

Boogie says a free market will work but doesn't explain it.

Please explain the debt cap and taking the clubs current financial state as a basis can you extend how Superleague would move forward under your Debt Cap idea??

Those clubs that are able to spend the maximum cap already attract the best players, so how does that differ from a free market?

Where does wage inflation enter the equation? Super League created wage inflation of extreme proportions when the first News money came into the game. Are you saying that the men behind the top clubs are so incapable of realising that e.g crowds, hospitality and merchandise are so important that they would fail to continue to tap these vital revenue streams and simply spend their own money?

The production lines at Saints, Leeds, Wigan etc are there because of the astute management of the clubs and the existence of strong amateur leagues in those areas, plus an ability to attract kids from elsewhere.

How is the competition more even? What indicators are you using to assert this assumption? The Ceteris Paribus rule does not apply simply because all other things are not and never will be equal.

You say if you have money you are in, but it doesn't actually work like that.

The ability of a club to compete should not be determined by preventing investment, it should be determined by an ability to meet it's obligations. If you have got money you are in, as you say.Scrap the cap, it's there in name only anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the aim of the cap?Is it to stop clubs struggling?Its not stopped Quins-Crusaders,Wakey,

Fax etc having major problems.Hull k.r are alleged to have 3million in loans.Bradford are weak financially.So for me its not very good system.

Has it evened the comp out?No as the same teams are in the grand final as before.Wigan,Saints and Leeds with Bradford having gone. The better players are still going to the big clubs like Shenton,Pitts etc.

The likes of Warrington,Bradford,Huddersfield,Salford are raiding the youth ranks in Halifax,Leigh,Cumbria,Heavy Woolen area as the quality and quantity in in these areas is way better than in the towns with the SL club. This makes life harder for championship clubs.So what is the caps aim exactly?For me its done very little for clubs financially or on the field.SL clubs have not invested much in to improving local talent.They would rather raid other service areas for the academy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017