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

Not if you reduce the number of clubs and redistribute the funding accordingly.......

That's clearly a possibility, though it would have to based on a reasonable number of clubs to avoid too much repetition [would three games against all the other clubs be too many?], not to mention getting Sky's approval, as paymaster in chief they would have a very large say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was brought in initially to stop clubs going bust, which a number did, chiefly whilst trying to avoid relegation. There has been a fair anount of 'mission creep' though...

I quite agree about it failing though, on pretty much all levels, though, as to whether it was better or worse than its predecessor, P&R without any cap, then I'd have to say the jury is definitely still out. Maybe there is just no 'perfect' system?

I think we need to decide what its for, and it needs to be stated clearly. That way maybe we can make it better. (note I'm not trying to abolish it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlighten me sc, what gives you the authority to tell others they don't understand money men's psyche but you do?

Ah, I think Dr Koukash needs to sit down while someone tells him what he's invested in.

Read the posts for your answer, the Doc will either find a way to bring success via his wealth or walk away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's clearly a possibility, though it would have to based on a reasonable number of clubs to avoid too much repetition [would three games against all the other clubs be too many?]......

From 2000 to 2005 12 clubs played each other twice and after that there were six more games making six fixtures "three" match fixtures.

Attendances rose from 7555* to 8977*.

I haven't looked to closely but IIRC the extra fixtures combined a desire to...

1. Repeat the derby games for crowds

2. Avoid this fixtures between top and bottom clubs to maintain competitive games.

Superleague averaged 9431 last year.*

Take out London and Cas and you get 10,200*

Add in extra derby fixtures and you may get that up towards 11,000*

The share of SL money is £1,200,000* shared 12 ways is £1,400,000*

So a 12 club superleague may get 1500* fans more per match and £200K* more from TV per club.

Which probably makes this option the most likely for 2015?

***** If anyone doesn't like the figures do yer own.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 2000 to 2005 12 clubs played each other twice and after that there were six more games making six fixtures "three" match fixtures.

Attendances rose from 7555* to 8977*.

I haven't looked to closely but IIRC the extra fixtures combined a desire to...

1. Repeat the derby games for crowds

2. Avoid this fixtures between top and bottom clubs to maintain competitive games.

Superleague averaged 9431 last year.*

Take out London and Cas and you get 10,200*

Add in extra derby fixtures and you may get that up towards 11,000*

The share of SL money is £1,200,000* shared 12 ways is £1,400,000*

So a 12 club superleague may get 1500* fans more per match and £200K* more from TV per club.

Which probably makes this option the most likely for 2015?

***** If anyone doesn't like the figures do yer own.....

I haven't done any kind of audit, as such but, based on your extra £200K accruing to each remaining club if two were lost, I don't think that would be sufficient to give all the remaining SL clubs sufficient funds to pay the full cap, even at at existing levels. That is to say, I think more than a few clubs are not currently getting within £200K of the cap. I say that even with the assumption that the two who drop out would be amongst those not paying full whack, but that wouldn't necessarily be set in stone - is a club not running at full cap but standing higher in the league than one that is, actually better run and more worthy of the spot?

I think it would mean more than two dropping out - in reality, maybe three or even four. Thing is, I'm not sure a ten or eleven club SL would be really viable. Fair enough, with the championship decided by play-offs you don't have to have to play equal numbners of games against all the clubs, but you do need sufficient variety to keep it interesting or fans vote with their feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be this misconception that the salary cap is £1.65m and totally inflexible, but in actual fact if you study the salary cap rules then its perfectly possible (and legal) for some clubs to already be paying at least £500k more than that to players.

On top of the basic £1.65m (which doesn't include National Insurance either) there are several other ways that clubs can pay the players...

1. Appearance Bonuses - if clubs pay their players appearance money on top of their contract money then only 18 games count towards the cap, therefore clubs can pay appearance money for the other 9 SL games and other salary cap relevant games (e.g. Challenge Cup, Play Offs etc) outside of the cap

2. Win Bonuses - as above but only 14 winning games count towards the cap, anything in excess of that is excluded

3. Prize Money - if a club pays a share of prize money from SL, Challenge Cup, World Club Challenge to its players then that is exempt from the cap

4. Challenge Cup - only QF, SF and Final are counted as salary cap relevant games so effectively the clubs can pay what they like to players in rounds 4 and 5.

5. Long service - there is a £50k dispensation for any club with players with more than 10 years service

6. Internationals - each club is allowed to deduct an amount from the salary cap spend each time a player they developed in their academy is picked to represent their country, up to a maximum of £100k per season. The player doesn't even have to be at their club anymore - e.g. if Westerman was picked for England then Cas would get the exemption and not Hull.

So its not as black and white as some seem to think. There are some top clubs who could quite easily be paying 30-40% over the "cap" as it stands.

You forgot to mention that London and Catalan automatically get the full International weighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rich money man will plow millions into a club with no fans.

Heard of Dr Koukash?

A London SL club in a franchised era is a much more enticing proposition than the same club 10 years ago. RL is entering - or at least tentatively attempting to do so - a new era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I see reading on that others have made the same point as me. Jumping the gun there. As you were....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard of Dr Koukash?

A London SL club in a franchised era is a much more enticing proposition than the same club 10 years ago. RL is entering - or at least tentatively attempting to do so - a new era.

That's probably correct, and the only real caveat to your thoughts would be that RL has been 'tentatively entering a new era' for the last 110 years and doesn't always make a lot of headway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of London don't want union, how many top flight clubs from union are in London.

They do want RU, the London clubs just don't own suitable stadiums in London.

Plenty of money men throw money at clubs with no fans or not enough to cover anywhere near the costs, A certain Doctor has just started. I believe someone in Featherstone is doing it, As for soccer it seems they can't waste enough money on buying and paying players far more than the number of supporters they get through the gate could ever sustain.

Money men have always had a fascination with throwing money at sport,

True, but they tend to either like sides with a long history or ones that they create and mould. Few seem to like investing in clubs with neither history nor community unless it's their club from the get-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be this misconception that the salary cap is £1.65m and totally inflexible, but in actual fact if you study the salary cap rules then its perfectly possible (and legal) for some clubs to already be paying at least £500k more than that to players.

On top of the basic £1.65m (which doesn't include National Insurance either) there are several other ways that clubs can pay the players...

1. Appearance Bonuses - if clubs pay their players appearance money on top of their contract money then only 18 games count towards the cap, therefore clubs can pay appearance money for the other 9 SL games and other salary cap relevant games (e.g. Challenge Cup, Play Offs etc) outside of the cap

2. Win Bonuses - as above but only 14 winning games count towards the cap, anything in excess of that is excluded

3. Prize Money - if a club pays a share of prize money from SL, Challenge Cup, World Club Challenge to its players then that is exempt from the cap

4. Challenge Cup - only QF, SF and Final are counted as salary cap relevant games so effectively the clubs can pay what they like to players in rounds 4 and 5.

5. Long service - there is a £50k dispensation for any club with players with more than 10 years service

6. Internationals - each club is allowed to deduct an amount from the salary cap spend each time a player they developed in their academy is picked to represent their country, up to a maximum of £100k per season. The player doesn't even have to be at their club anymore - e.g. if Westerman was picked for England then Cas would get the exemption and not Hull.

So its not as black and white as some seem to think. There are some top clubs who could quite easily be paying 30-40% over the "cap" as it stands.

Is there a limit to the amount of money clubs can pay players for the games that don't count on the SC? Theoretically, could Salford sign Jonathon Thurston on an average SL contract but ensure it gets topped up by an extra £500,000 (for a number) over the course of the extra unaudited games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a limit to the amount of money clubs can pay players for the games that don't count on the SC? Theoretically, could Salford sign Jonathon Thurston on an average SL contract but ensure it gets topped up by an extra £500,000 (for a number) over the course of the extra unaudited games?

i was thinking along these lines - i assume that you can only pay players the same as what you pay for each sc game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was thinking along these lines - i assume that you can only pay players the same as what you pay for each sc game.

Maybe so Dave but what about win bonuses? Do clubs have to lodge details with the SL of how much they are paying as a win bonus? What about the Challenge Cup games? Salford could offer Thurston a half a mill for as little as one Cup game per season as long as he sees the rest of his contract out. Strange carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017