Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Daddy

Marwan Koukash wants the salary cap raised, and to be honest I agree with him

42 posts in this topic

don't be so arrogant and condescending. You aren't respecting people's opinions at all with posts like the above.

You said it is easy to make a success of a club if you have money - history has proven you wrong over and over again.

Now then Dave, no name calling. We agree to disagree.

All the clubs who have found men rich enough to plug the funding gap for professional RL are doing OK.

All the clubs that haven't are floundering.

It looks to me as simple as that.

Now Wilko and Clague ran out of money and it nearly killed Salford.

Let's wait and see if Koukash's Millions revive them and see them compete and crowds increase?.

I bet they will.

Are we on for £1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now then Dave, no name calling. We agree to disagree.

All the clubs who have found men rich enough to plug the funding gap for professional RL are doing OK.

All the clubs that haven't are floundering.

It looks to me as simple as that.

Now Wilko and Clague ran out of money and it nearly killed Salford.

Let's wait and see if Koukash's Millions revive them and see them compete and crowds increase?.

I bet they will.

Are we on for £1?

there was no name calling, I was commenting on the behaviour I sawxin a post. Sarcy comments hardly make people want to debate and discuss with you, but I apologise if any offence was caused.

There are loads of examples across British sport of rich people failing, including in RL. You know that Im not sure why you fail to acknowledge it.

When you say doing ok - im sure Salford are not aiming to be like Widnes, Hull KR or Hudds (no disrespect to those teams - just examples of clubs with rich backers yet to win anything). The clubs who do well are the well run clubs with rich backers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London don't exactly dovetail nicely into this rich = success theory.

(I am assuming David Hughes is wealthy, I've read it enough times on here how he bankrolls them anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London don't exactly dovetail nicely into this rich = success theory.

(I am assuming David Hughes is wealthy, I've read it enough times on here how he bankrolls them anyway)

aye - could probably have listed a fair few but i still had sleep in my eyes!

Probably the best example of all is Salford themselves. JW was loaded - certainly by my standards! Hardly a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that when we discuss the salary cap the people who are effected most, the players, often seem to be an afterthought. It's not happened yet in this thread, but I always wonder whether people who advocate a reduction in the salary cap would do so for any other profession bar the obvious.

This is an excellent point. Raising the salary cap is clearly in the interests of the players since it will directly increase their salaries. For some of them at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London are surely hamstrung by the salary cap. The price of buying or renting a house within any kind of distance from the Broncos is far far more than anything you'll get along the M62 corridor. Im sure they probably have to pay a premium on experienced players. If there was a relaxation of the salary cap someone somewhere might just want to get on board with David Hughes, maybe not - only one way of finding out.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London are surely hamstrung by the salary cap. The price of buying or renting a house within any kind of distance from the Broncos is far far more than anything you'll get along the M62 corridor. Im sure they probably have to pay a premium on experienced players. If there was a relaxation of the salary cap someone somewhere might just want to get on board with David Hughes, maybe not - only one way of finding out.....

FIGHT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London are surely hamstrung by the salary cap. The price of buying or renting a house within any kind of distance from the Broncos is far far more than anything you'll get along the M62 corridor. Im sure they probably have to pay a premium on experienced players. If there was a relaxation of the salary cap someone somewhere might just want to get on board with David Hughes, maybe not - only one way of finding out.....

London automatically get the international players cap allowance, without providing enough internationals. This is done to provide the club a weighting to allow them to attract experienced players.

So the in effect get a London weighting on the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right, I see. How much does that come to? How does it work - is it an extra bit you can put on each player, as if he is an international, or a lump sum that you can spread about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarcy comments hardly make people want to debate and discuss with you.

The clubs who do well are the well run clubs with rich backers.

1. I did post to accept your point up to a point on the other thread to bring discussions to an amicable end, but noticed your post on this thread #9 which says "he didn't need to he's loaded. Haven't you heard?"

So I apologise to you if I took this as you being sarcastic and carrying things on.

2. I disagree. The club who does the very best is no longer being backed by a rich backer, Mr. Caddick won't even back his own team at the club. Good business acumen is in place so again you do have a good point up to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you rather an open wage bill and the possibility of less clubs for the same players to play for, meaning less chance of being employed as a full time professional RL player?

I accept there is a danger of that and maybe there does need to be some sort of cap. I would suspect that most professional players certainly don't earn enough to last them for long after they retire though and considering the physical toll their bodies must go through I think their salaries don't reflect what they put themselves through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I did post to accept your point up to a point on the other thread to bring discussions to an amicable end, but noticed your post on this thread #9 which says "he didn't need to he's loaded. Haven't you heard?"

So I apologise to you if I took this as you being sarcastic and carrying things on.

2. I disagree. The club who does the very best is no longer being backed by a rich backer, Mr. Caddick won't even back his own team at the club. Good business acumen is in place so again you do have a good point up to a point.

Have you heard the phrase 'do as I say, not as I do'? - :D apologies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept there is a danger of that and maybe there does need to be some sort of cap. I would suspect that most professional players certainly don't earn enough to last them for long after they retire though and considering the physical toll their bodies must go through I think their salaries don't reflect what they put themselves through.

In the ideal world it would be RL players on hundreds of thousands per week and footballers on a couple of grand a week. Unfortunately it's not an ideal world we live in and the game needs to pay what the game can afford. That means there won't be any millionaires leaving the game at the end of their careers any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the good doctor is doing all he can to ensure Salford are in the news as often as possible.

I don't think he cares how ridiculous his pronouncements are, it doesn't matter. People are talking about Salford, that is what matters.

Saying a club has to stand on its own two feet doesn't mean it has to make a profit from day one, it means that any investment put in is used to achieve self sufficiency. Kourkash realises realises he has to invest and use that investment to better the club as a business.

All these offers for players aren't about this season, its about who is available at the end of this season.

Salford have a profile problem, Dr. K is certainly doing his best to address that.

Youv'e got it in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His idea is right in principle but of course a higher cap means the ability to pay it and this brings up the whole "too many teams in the same area" (ie merger) debate again. However, he did say something I liked in a recent interview on BBC Radio Manchester, namely a riff on the old "If you build it they will come" schtick. His point being he has no illusions of making a profit out of Salford but rather wanted the legacy of a newly established force in the game and the kudos that comes with that. His plaything that also "gives back" to an area etc. It's only a stone's throw from that idea to that of a similarly-minded individual or individuals starting up new SL franchises in big towns like Birmingham, Edinburgh, Bristol etc. and in that case we would have our bigger, more powerful SL with a higher cap and - I would assume - bigger TV deal and commercial sponsorship to help pay for it. If we wanted to then avoid the merger issue we could realistically be honest in earmarking teams like Cas, Wakey, Hull KR & Widnes for a larger chunk of the TV money in order to allow them to pay the cap. Call it a "small market dividend" or whatever and make no apologies for paying it. In this climate London would be taken out of that equation as you'd hopefully have no shortage of Dr Ks (ie with a bit more clout than Hughes) looking to take the reins there and create their own legacy.

This (or something similar) is what SL should be aiming towards and hopefully Dr K acts as a catalyst for this kind of benign visionary investor. His comments on this issue are obviously very welcome but what we can't have is just a knee-jerk raising of the cap without forethought allowing the likes of his club and Leeds to just race off into the distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the things we need to decide as a sport is exactly what the aim of the salary cap is for, as from many angles it seems to have failed.

Is it:-

  • to stop clubs overspending (failed, I think it was better when it had the addition of the 50% rule)
  • spread out the talent from clubs who have good junior systems (possibly succeeded but is this an own goal with some clubs now not seeming to invest in youth)
  • to stop only a few clubs winning everything (a list of teams winning any of the three competitions in the last 6 years only has 4 names on it - 18 titles between 4 clubs)
  • to level the Super League competition (failed, might not have done had we only had 12 teams though)

I'm struggling to think of more reasons for the cap, as on the above scale it doesn't work.

What other reasons are there for a salary cap, because there might be better ways of achieving the goals once we decide what they are (and if we can stop the drain of top talent to RU then that would help quality as well)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017