Archived

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

RSN

If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL.

88 posts in this topic

'If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL' was the point made on back chat today.

Stupid idea or would it actually increase standards in SL?

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have an issue with the idea but can enough clubs afford it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the point that was being made, but it can't happen any time soon.

If you have to spend the full cap then that is encouraging clubs to go bust or drop out, if clubs drop out, and we could be looking at 4 to 6 clubs, who will replace them that can spend the cap.

How do you prove you can spend the cap, do clubs with a three year license have to deposit £1.8m each year with the RFL at the start of the season to pay the players wages.

If you say that if you don't pay the full cap in anyone season then your out, who comes in and where does the money come from.

Do you have to have a percentage of the cap reserved for possible emergencies.

What if you don't spend the full cap and win the Grand Final, are you relegated. ( Yes this could happen now but you are measured on a lot more criteria)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad idea because teams would be forced to waste money even if players weren't available. Like the year widnes came up they didn't have a top quality squad and very few top players were on the market. What would be good is clubs should have to meet a minimum spend but that shouldn't be the cap. On a £1.65m cap clubs should have to spend say between £1.3 and

£1.4m. That would give clubs enough movement if they go into a transitional year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's basically force teams to pay average players more money. How would that improve standards? They're already full time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential for RL to become super IMO ,too many clubs know they have nothing to play for so can concentrate on balancing books and not contributing to the future of the sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential for RL to become super IMO ,too many clubs know they have nothing to play for so can concentrate on balancing books and not contributing to the future of the sport

What is the point paying mediocre players top dollar when the number of quality players to make the league competitive aren't actually available? Some clubs would be better advised using money to increase the participation within their own areas and then developing the pathways for the cream of the crop to rise into the first teams... certain clubs would be better funding a number of junior sides rather than paying players like Josh Perry £150,000 a year etc. The game needs to look at the strategic picture for long term benefits, not short term fixes which it is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly idea, there seems to be a recurring misconception that spending up to the cap limit will make a side competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL' was the point made on back chat today.

Stupid idea or would it actually increase standards in SL?

Discuss.

Backchat will throw up stuff just to fill the TV slot.

It's a good idea in theory to get everyone competing but the posts above outline the problems.

How can Salford spend full cap when there's nobody to spend it on?

Won't it force wage inflation??

What about clubs who manage to have a darn good side on a couple of hundred grand less because of their excellent junior system.

The licensing commitee sort this out. If clubs don't have the money they will reject them like Halifax last time.

If SLE find they cant get clubs who can spend enough to be competitive then they may consider dropping SL down to say 12.

These are sensible ways of sorting this issue out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 3 weeks ago on another thread I suggested that there will be a move towards a minimum, rather than a maximum, spend in SL as a stealth move to jettison a couple of clubs from SL. I still believe that will happen and will be used as an unofficial criteria when clubs are scored if licensing is still with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 3 weeks ago on another thread I suggested that there will be a move towards a minimum, rather than a maximum, spend in SL as a stealth move to jettison a couple of clubs from SL. I still believe that will happen and will be used as an unofficial criteria when clubs are scored if licensing is still with us.

That's fair enough.

Listening carefully to these sort of issues there are two clubs that have given up the ghost on the salary cap and have pitched their wages at as much as they can afford not to end up like Halifax 2003.

The purpose is I believe not to stack up any more losses, but when cutting back as far as they dare on wages one wonders exactly what cuts they have made behind the scenes, all of which should equally go against them next license round.

Care to suggest the "couple of clubs"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to suggest the "couple of clubs"??

I think Castleford would go. They would be the obvious favourites. No money, no further forward with stadium development, a club treading water really.

Rightly or wrongly, I think London will go too unless someone comes forward to replace Hughes - they simply can't survive without the kind of financial input he puts in. If its true that he's quitting next year then its difflcult to see how they can carry on in SL without him or someone of his ilk. That's the harsh reality.

I'm not saying they'd be my personal choices to go, just that if you were losing 2 clubs then they'd be the obvious candidates as things stand at the moment.

Where that leaves the likes of Fev is another matter altogether........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the "all clubs pay up to the cap" is unenforceable. For example, take Wigan this year, up until just before the season we were assuming we would be playing Hock, now Widnes are paying most (or maybe all) of his wage, meaning that the team is now below the cap (assuming it was up to it in the first place considering the high profile players who left last year).

I think a better line would be, perhaps an extra point in the franchising score if you can prove you can pay up to the cap. Difficult I know, off hand I'd suggest maybe showing that a full cap would be below 50% of the clubs turnover.

Whatever happens though the cap has to start going up AT LEAST with inflation. The current cap, through not having moved for so long has devalued by a third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's basically force teams to pay average players more money. How would that improve standards? They're already full time.

Nail, head.

Paying Sam Tomkins twice the money doesn't make him twice as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current SL clubs can't even afford to run a reserve grade competition so until they can they should forget about paying the full salary cap. A full league of players has just been lost, some SL players but mostly guys in the Championship that had lost their place by being replaced due to dual registration.

The whole concept of SL was to reduce overseas players and develop up and coming players to enable us to compete in the international games.

There is no future in any sport that doesn't develop young players. You cannot expect a young lad playing at Championship level to suddenly become international class.

Bring back the under 23 league before we lose a generation of players and several Championship clubs go under due to no fans. Some will say why will they go bust ? If your club has a bad few years and get relegated to the Championship and the team is then dual registered would you go and watch your team when it's full of your rivals players ? Only time will tell and hopefully things will change before its too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying Sam Tomkins twice the money doesn't make him twice as good.

No but it might stop him being a union great and staying in RL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL' was the point made on back chat today.

Stupid idea or would it actually increase standards in SL?

Discuss.

oh the irony a barrow fan pontificating about the salary cap...........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but it might stop him being a union great and staying in RL

Yes - but where do we stop?

Union has a much bigger salary cap, as do the NRL - they can both outbid us, unless we go to at least their level, which the game can't afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres not enough sl standard players to choose from. thats one of the biggest problems the game faces, player participation at all levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres not enough sl standard players to choose from. thats one of the biggest problems the game faces, player participation at all levels.

This doesn't make sense. The best players will be playing in SL. THAT is SL standard.

We may want it to be higher, but whatever we have in there is the standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we flip this on its head: what if clubs had to prove they had the ability to pay the full cap, but weren't compelled to spend it each year.

Taking it a step further: what if all the players in Super League were centrally contracted with a salary cap of, say, £2.1m. All wages would go straight through the payroll at Red Hall, with a mandatory pension scheme for all players. The clubs themselves would be required to lodge a top-up payment of, say, £500k to supplement the money awarded by Sky to cover wages.

In this scenario, we'd have complete transparency where the salary cap is concerned; we'd also avoid a repeat of recent situations where players aren't getting paid. In addition, we could also implement a system (similar to the NRL) where clubs could carry over unspent salary cap allowance from one year to the next.

Finally, you'd also create a situation whereby the RFL are custodians of the players' welfare but could also take direct control of things such as image rights.

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't make sense. The best players will be playing in SL. THAT is SL standard.

We may want it to be higher, but whatever we have in there is the standard.

You're getting picky over semantics again.

I think it's quite clear that the point he's making is that there aren't enough elite standard players in the current talent pool to service 14 Super League clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to sum up:

If you don't pay the full cap you can't be in SL.

In theory, good idea.

In reality, impossible and unworkable at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be the other way around for me with a minimum salary cap. Lets just say the cap gets upped to say 2m the minimum should be 1.5mil cap.

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