Archived

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

Pottsy

Dr Koukash on FiveLive

412 posts in this topic

So it's not evening out the game, it's not preventing clubs going bust, we are agreed it seems.

What then is the point of the salary cap?

not really

you said it was supposed to stop clubs going bust. I said it wasn't. I said it wasasafeguard to help them avoid doing so. You can't stop businesses getting into dofficulties, you can attempt to avoid the obvious pitfalls.

How does not having a salary cap even out the game? The richest clubs, and/or the clubs most willing to spend money they haven't got will have an advantage over the rest: and the ones spendingwhat they haven't got will surely pay te price.

If you want o 'even out the game', you will need a draft system and the centralisation of all finance, marketing,strict standards that all can adhere to, player development and facilities. To do that properly you will have to exclude clubs who are unable, or unwilling to operate adequately within those strict standards.

Fancuy it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Dr Koukash should concentrate on paying the club's creditors within the game before he stamps his feet about not being allowed to spend more money. I imagine the likes of Leigh Sports Village (owed £138,000 for training facilities) and Shaun McRea (owed £103,500) are overjoyed to hear that the Salford club has pots of money to spend......

You well know how a CVA works & the Dr has reaffirmed all creditors will be paid in full. The 75% majority was achieved. A new Company was formed and the Doctor now has a fresh playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people seem to struggle to understand the benefits of any decision that is made in RL – and therefore immediately call for it to be scrapped if it doesn’t do what they want it to.

eg. because we haven’t caught the Aussies up at Test level, SL overall has failed.

Let’s have a look at the salary cap and a couple of the supposed benefits with a level head:

a) Stopping clubs from going bust:

People state that there are still clubs in financial difficulties so it is a failure.

1 - It is important to remember that we are in the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, the country is struggling and businesses are failing left right and centre. RL clubs went bust in the good times, so even with the tightest financial controls clubs will struggle now, as fans tighten their belts, businesses do not embrace sponsorship deals – and indeed some sponsors even go bust not fulfilling their deals.

2 – What the limit does is prevent a megalomaniac boss deciding that their best plan is to spend £4m on salaries (that they can’t afford) in the hope that crowds will flock and Wembley and Old Trafford trips will cover this. It is a dangerous game and at some stage this crumbles as either the boss gets bored and moves on, or the cash flow just isn’t there. Whilst there are still teams that struggle, the cap protects the clubs from terrible business practise, which we have seen loads of over the years. We hear so often in RL that owners are looking to make their club self-sufficent, we have attracted a certain type of investor to our game that appreciates good business practice and how important it is that revenues can cover the bills. Warrington were in a much worse state when we were allowed to spend what we wanted – just a couple of years after large spending on Welsh RU players, Ellis, Bateman, Davies, Phillips etc. we were living hand to mouth and without the sales of Harris and Sculthorpe we’d probably have gone bust earlier.

b ) Levelling up of the comp:

People state that we have the same old teams at the top so it is a failure.

1 – The top of the table is very competitive, however some clubs will always be more attractive to players irrespective of wages on offer. Man Utd will probably always have that over Man City, despite the fact that City can offer a lot more. If Many City had signed Van Persie this year I suspect the trophy would have been retained, but no, Man Utd’s name and history won that battle. Wigan will always be more attractive than Salford I’m sorry to say.

2 – Many assume that the clubs with rich backers would all just pay much more in wages – yet apart from Koukash, I haven’t seen any rich backer come out and say they want to throw more money at their clubs – in fact it contradicts their calls for a sustainable club. All that would happen in the short term is that clubs would use more overdrafts, cuts would be made from other areas, and wage bills would spiral.

I also think there is one absolutely massive benefit to the game that people ignore when it comes to the salary cap:

c)Spending on other benefits

Clubs know that they need to get another ‘edge’ on the competition, so we have seen a hell of a lot more investment in things like training facilities, sports science, youth development, training camps etc. Warrington have a turnover of around £5.5m yet they only spend £1.8m on the first team – this means that they have money to play with in terms of investing in these other areas. Off the field clubs have much bigger structures, driving sales, commercial revenues etc.

IMHO a real risk of allowing Warrington to spend what they want is simply that the first things to be cut will be the positive things like training, sports science, youth etc. simply so they could sign a SBW or Burgess or Graham.

IMHO the salary cap is doing an awful lot of good, we should constantly review if the limits are right for the game, and I believe they do that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people seem to struggle to understand the benefits of any decision that is made in RL – and therefore immediately call for it to be scrapped if it doesn’t do what they want it to.

eg. because we haven’t caught the Aussies up at Test level, SL overall has failed.

Let’s have a look at the salary cap and a couple of the supposed benefits with a level head:

a) Stopping clubs from going bust:

People state that there are still clubs in financial difficulties so it is a failure.

1 - It is important to remember that we are in the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, the country is struggling and businesses are failing left right and centre. RL clubs went bust in the good times, so even with the tightest financial controls clubs will struggle now, as fans tighten their belts, businesses do not embrace sponsorship deals – and indeed some sponsors even go bust not fulfilling their deals.

2 – What the limit does is prevent a megalomaniac boss deciding that their best plan is to spend £4m on salaries (that they can’t afford) in the hope that crowds will flock and Wembley and Old Trafford trips will cover this. It is a dangerous game and at some stage this crumbles as either the boss gets bored and moves on, or the cash flow just isn’t there. Whilst there are still teams that struggle, the cap protects the clubs from terrible business practise, which we have seen loads of over the years. We hear so often in RL that owners are looking to make their club self-sufficent, we have attracted a certain type of investor to our game that appreciates good business practice and how important it is that revenues can cover the bills. Warrington were in a much worse state when we were allowed to spend what we wanted – just a couple of years after large spending on Welsh RU players, Ellis, Bateman, Davies, Phillips etc. we were living hand to mouth and without the sales of Harris and Sculthorpe we’d probably have gone bust earlier.

b ) Levelling up of the comp:

People state that we have the same old teams at the top so it is a failure.

1 – The top of the table is very competitive, however some clubs will always be more attractive to players irrespective of wages on offer. Man Utd will probably always have that over Man City, despite the fact that City can offer a lot more. If Many City had signed Van Persie this year I suspect the trophy would have been retained, but no, Man Utd’s name and history won that battle. Wigan will always be more attractive than Salford I’m sorry to say.

2 – Many assume that the clubs with rich backers would all just pay much more in wages – yet apart from Koukash, I haven’t seen any rich backer come out and say they want to throw more money at their clubs – in fact it contradicts their calls for a sustainable club. All that would happen in the short term is that clubs would use more overdrafts, cuts would be made from other areas, and wage bills would spiral.

I also think there is one absolutely massive benefit to the game that people ignore when it comes to the salary cap:

c)Spending on other benefits

Clubs know that they need to get another ‘edge’ on the competition, so we have seen a hell of a lot more investment in things like training facilities, sports science, youth development, training camps etc. Warrington have a turnover of around £5.5m yet they only spend £1.8m on the first team – this means that they have money to play with in terms of investing in these other areas. Off the field clubs have much bigger structures, driving sales, commercial revenues etc.

IMHO a real risk of allowing Warrington to spend what they want is simply that the first things to be cut will be the positive things like training, sports science, youth etc. simply so they could sign a SBW or Burgess or Graham.

IMHO the salary cap is doing an awful lot of good, we should constantly review if the limits are right for the game, and I believe they do that anyway.

aye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really

you said it was supposed to stop clubs going bust. I said it wasn't. I said it wasasafeguard to help them avoid doing so. You can't stop businesses getting into dofficulties, you can attempt to avoid the obvious pitfalls.

How does not having a salary cap even out the game? The richest clubs, and/or the clubs most willing to spend money they haven't got will have an advantage over the rest: and the ones spendingwhat they haven't got will surely pay te price.

If you want o 'even out the game', you will need a draft system and the centralisation of all finance, marketing,strict standards that all can adhere to, player development and facilities. To do that properly you will have to exclude clubs who are unable, or unwilling to operate adequately within those strict standards.

Fancuy it?

I'd argue that we don't want or need to even out the game, in fact in trying to, we will slowly kill it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that we don't want or need to even out the game, in fact in trying to, we will slowly kill it.

Spot on

IMHO the salary cap should be scrapped.

It holds out game back, it doesn't produce an even competition and it doesn't stop clubs going bust. I'm struggling to find a use for it.

you seem to have c hanged your mind since yesterday.You are of course entitled to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that we don't want or need to even out the game, in fact in trying to, we will slowly kill it.

The salary cap doesn't even out the game, but to a certain extent it does stop the gap between top and bottom becoming a huge chasm. People often get excited on here about the 'best SL ever' and how competitive the games are - do you think you'd get that if the top 5 clubs were spending £2.5m each and the bottom clubs still struggling to spend £1m ? The only way you can scrap the salary cap and still have a competitive league is to completely restructure the distribution of central funds in the game so that all clubs have a relatively equal income, but that is never going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between top line and bottom line when looking at a clubs turnover, eg merchandise sales are turnover but cost of sales - stock, shop, staff etc - need to come off before you have spare income to spend, same with food, drink etc . The key to director philanthropy is that it does not shackle the club ie not as loans and the books should be covered every year, so if Koukash wants to spend £5m getting Salford challenging for honours then it is paid into the club the year it was spent, therefore ih he lost interest he doesn't ask for it back via a loan. In this scenario let them spend what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between top line and bottom line when looking at a clubs turnover, eg merchandise sales are turnover but cost of sales - stock, shop, staff etc - need to come off before you have spare income to spend, same with food, drink etc . The key to director philanthropy is that it does not shackle the club ie not as loans and the books should be covered every year, so if Koukash wants to spend £5m getting Salford challenging for honours then it is paid into the club the year it was spent, therefore ih he lost interest he doesn't ask for it back via a loan. In this scenario let them spend what they want.

yep - I think that is one of the reasons that a 50% cap doesn't always work to stop clubs overspending as two clubs could turnover £5m yet have massively different cost bases. £5m could make a large profit with one club and a massive loss with another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep - I think that is one of the reasons that a 50% cap doesn't always work to stop clubs overspending as two clubs could turnover £5m yet have massively different cost bases. £5m could make a large profit with one club and a massive loss with another.

A major part of that cost base is player wages though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very easy to show huge income for a purpose with the right owners. Widnes mastered this in ticking boxes in the last franchise farce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major part of that cost base is player wages though.

Of course it is - not only player wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people seem to struggle to understand the benefits of any decision that is made in RL – and therefore immediately call for it to be scrapped if it doesn’t do what they want it to.

eg. because we haven’t caught the Aussies up at Test level, SL overall has failed.

Let’s have a look at the salary cap and a couple of the supposed benefits with a level head:

a) Stopping clubs from going bust:

People state that there are still clubs in financial difficulties so it is a failure.

1 - It is important to remember that we are in the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, the country is struggling and businesses are failing left right and centre. RL clubs went bust in the good times, so even with the tightest financial controls clubs will struggle now, as fans tighten their belts, businesses do not embrace sponsorship deals – and indeed some sponsors even go bust not fulfilling their deals.

2 – What the limit does is prevent a megalomaniac boss deciding that their best plan is to spend £4m on salaries (that they can’t afford) in the hope that crowds will flock and Wembley and Old Trafford trips will cover this. It is a dangerous game and at some stage this crumbles as either the boss gets bored and moves on, or the cash flow just isn’t there. Whilst there are still teams that struggle, the cap protects the clubs from terrible business practise, which we have seen loads of over the years. We hear so often in RL that owners are looking to make their club self-sufficent, we have attracted a certain type of investor to our game that appreciates good business practice and how important it is that revenues can cover the bills. Warrington were in a much worse state when we were allowed to spend what we wanted – just a couple of years after large spending on Welsh RU players, Ellis, Bateman, Davies, Phillips etc. we were living hand to mouth and without the sales of Harris and Sculthorpe we’d probably have gone bust earlier.

b ) Levelling up of the comp:

People state that we have the same old teams at the top so it is a failure.

1 – The top of the table is very competitive, however some clubs will always be more attractive to players irrespective of wages on offer. Man Utd will probably always have that over Man City, despite the fact that City can offer a lot more. If Many City had signed Van Persie this year I suspect the trophy would have been retained, but no, Man Utd’s name and history won that battle. Wigan will always be more attractive than Salford I’m sorry to say.

2 – Many assume that the clubs with rich backers would all just pay much more in wages – yet apart from Koukash, I haven’t seen any rich backer come out and say they want to throw more money at their clubs – in fact it contradicts their calls for a sustainable club. All that would happen in the short term is that clubs would use more overdrafts, cuts would be made from other areas, and wage bills would spiral.

I also think there is one absolutely massive benefit to the game that people ignore when it comes to the salary cap:

c)Spending on other benefits

Clubs know that they need to get another ‘edge’ on the competition, so we have seen a hell of a lot more investment in things like training facilities, sports science, youth development, training camps etc. Warrington have a turnover of around £5.5m yet they only spend £1.8m on the first team – this means that they have money to play with in terms of investing in these other areas. Off the field clubs have much bigger structures, driving sales, commercial revenues etc.

IMHO a real risk of allowing Warrington to spend what they want is simply that the first things to be cut will be the positive things like training, sports science, youth etc. simply so they could sign a SBW or Burgess or Graham.

IMHO the salary cap is doing an awful lot of good, we should constantly review if the limits are right for the game, and I believe they do that anyway.

and that dave is one of the best posts ever made on this forum..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if Koukash wants to spend £5m getting Salford challenging for honours then it is paid into the club the year it was spent, therefore ih he lost interest he doesn't ask for it back via a loan. In this scenario let them spend what they want.

Here's a scenario:

Salford get their exemption, they sign several players on A LOT of money on 5 year contracts. The first 2 years, Koukash covers the wages, then he gets bored and leaves. Those player salaries still need to be paid for 3 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People often get excited on here about the 'best SL ever' and how competitive the games are - do you think you'd get that if the top 5 clubs were spending £2.5m each and the bottom clubs still struggling to spend £1m ?

That sounds like SL1 & SL2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like SL1 & SL2...

And if that does eventuate with an open spend, then how many SL1 clubs will throw money they can't afford at their team in the hope it keeps them up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like SL1 & SL2...

No it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a scenario:

Salford get their exemption, they sign several players on A LOT of money on 5 year contracts. The first 2 years, Koukash covers the wages, then he gets bored and leaves. Those player salaries still need to be paid for 3 years

Then they go t**s like they just have done but the fans have had some fun along the way and the success has interested a new wave of investor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are all happy to move forward, with no real hope of raising the standard?

That's fine, but then we shouldn't all be bitching when we don't get the kind of coverage we "deserve".

If we are going to act like a tin-pot sport, which is happy to "level" a competition "up" to the level of the weakest participants, then we should not be surprised when we are treated like one.

Unambitious, flat-capism of the highest order. it's no wonder RU is cleaning our clock at every level.

Excellently put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are all happy to move forward, with no real hope of raising the standard?

That's fine, but then we shouldn't all be bitching when we don't get the kind of coverage we "deserve".

If we are going to act like a tin-pot sport, which is happy to "level" a competition "up" to the level of the weakest participants, then we should not be surprised when we are treated like one.

Unambitious, flat-capism of the highest order. it's no wonder RU is cleaning our clock at every level.

Could you explain how raising the salary cap will improve standards ? Seems to me the league would still contain the same players only they'd be better paid. Does paying them more suddenly make them better players ?

How will standards rise when you have a league of 5 or 6 strong squads and the rest miles behind ? There'll be blowout scores galore. Then the lower clubs will get even weaker as support drops due to them getting thrashed every other week and so their income falls. Standards will actually fall across the league as a whole.

If you want a genuinely competitive league with a raised cap then you'd need to spread the central funding differently, eg Cas might get £2m per year and Leeds only £250k, in order to even the odds. But turkeys don't vote for Christmas so it's never going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain how raising the salary cap will improve standards ? Seems to me the league would still contain the same players only they'd be better paid. Does paying them more suddenly make them better players ?

How will standards rise when you have a league of 5 or 6 strong squads and the rest miles behind ? There'll be blowout scores galore. Then the lower clubs will get even weaker as support drops due to them getting thrashed every other week and so their income falls. Standards will actually fall across the league as a whole.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the league would still contain the same players only they'd be better paid.

Same players plus one or two Aussies on blowout salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they go t**s like they just have done but the fans have had some fun along the way and the success has interested a new wave of investor

By that logic Gateshead Thunder would be a huge side by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain to me how implementing the salary cap has raised standards?

Can you also explain to me how it has stopped clubs going bust?

It hasn't done either of those things, but that's not a reason to scrap it. In fact, you could argue that without a cap in place the clubs who have gone bust would have done so quicker and with higher debts. Additionally, if you want to raise standards then throwing money at first teamers isn't the answer. If clubs have spare money then the way to raise standards is to invest it into youth programmes and facilities. That's how you raise standards, not by giving existing players a pay rise.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or just keep on deflecting ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't done either of those things, but that's not a reason to scrap it. In fact, you could argue that without a cap in place the clubs who have gone bust would have done so quicker and with higher debts. Additionally, if you want to raise standards then throwing money at first teamers isn't the answer. If clubs have spare money then the way to raise standards is to invest it into youth programmes and facilities. That's how you raise standards, not by giving existing players a pay rise.

dead right

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