Archived

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

ELBOWSEYE

Dr K rips into Mcmanus

317 posts in this topic

We have no way of knowing it has not saved clubs from going under.  We can say it has not prevented any club from going under, but it might well have saved a few.  One club spending more than they can afford (hardly an unusual event) raises the wages for all players and would impact all clubs.  The problem it seems to me is still having more places in Super League than viable Super League clubs.  Perhaps, ideally, we would have a Super League with stronger clubs (even from France if needs be, but that is another argument), with a salary cap that they could all afford - but hte level they could all afford would allow them to buy the stars they are after.

 

I kind of make that point at the end: 'However, just going free for all would only seem to make each of those situations worse'. Admittedly, you phrase is more clear than mine.

 

I see where you are coming from about the number of teams argument. But how much contraction would you be happy with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fans are great at insisting owners spend loads of money, but then moan if tickets cost more than a tenner.

 

 

Great line. One of Rugby League's bigger problems in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont understand your last line. Who are these journeymen blocking votes?

Perhaps, just perhaps it was the right decision.

Club owners who don't want to offer others the opportunity for reaching a higher level of investment, ambition and competition with others in the marketplace..

Perhaps,  just perhaps it wasn't the right decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great line. One of Rugby League's bigger problems in a nutshell.

Low profile sponsors and resultant low income from sponsorship used to offset ticket prices is a more important problem in a nut shell. Low profile game low profile sponsors. Marquee players, higher profile game higher profile sponsors....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koukash needs to make his mind on a few few things, one of his statements was indicating he wanted the clubs to have more of say in running the game.... then something goes to a vote, the majority (of clubs) don't want the Marquee rule.  Then he kicks off

 

Does he want the clubs running the game or does he want run it himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of make that point at the end: 'However, just going free for all would only seem to make each of those situations worse'. Admittedly, you phrase is more clear than mine.

 

I see where you are coming from about the number of teams argument. But how much contraction would you be happy with?

Indeed, and I only intended to disagree with one aspect of your very reasonable post.

 

Contraction would be unfortunate, but I fear it is reality.  I should declare that I am on the more radical end of the fervent expansionist wing.  However, it is not because I want to stick pins in a map, but because I think the present structure is stuck in the past and causes major problems.

 

Hull

Leeds

Les Catalans

Salford

St Helens

Toulouse

Warrington

Wigan

- plus maybe up to two others.  

 

It is a list brutally based on where the finance for a club is and little else.  Clearly, a things could develop in London and a rich man in Salford could change his mind, Wakefield could get their act together.  I am clearly not in a position to make the calls.  The question is what state would Super League be in with a £2.6million salary cap or a free for all, and though I can not be certain I suspect it would be in sorry shape.

 

I would much prefer we have 100+ viable full time clubs like soccer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it should come in or not the marquee allowance should be a decision that is made by the RFL board of directors. How can you have clear thinking where clubs have such a vested interest either way. If you were a smaller club you wouldn't want the potential gap to open up and if you had spent a fortune on your youth set-up you wouldn't want to fast-track a big spending rival.

 

I don't think this is about the competition it is about the quality of our game here in the UK. If a marquee was brought in under strict financial control (e.g. you had to present a stable financial case to the RFL board to be granted one) then it could see players like Billy Slater and Greg Inglis finishing their careers here. That has to be good for the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To increase the cap, we need clubs that can afford an increased cap and we still struggle to find enough clubs that can cope with the level set as it is (I will soon be as popular as Parksider).

 

Cheers Bob, my support for a 10 club SL  with a central business plan and close financial control naturally puts me at odds with 27 clubs fans and all traditionalists and P & R merchants. But it's the only sensible business plan we have left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low profile sponsors and resultant low income from sponsorship used to offset ticket prices is a more important problem in a nut shell.

 

Well it's not an unrelated issue, because where are you going to get the money from in the first place to buy these marquee players. You have to start somewhere. Like Dave said, it's very easy to spend other people's money in writing. Personally I don't think the marquee rule would fix any of these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people like Koukash want to spend beyond the cap I'd let them go for it personally, I see no benefit in holding back, money doesn't guarantee success and if he ends up paying out transfer fees as well as big wages it opens up the opportunity for shrewd clubs to cash in and perhaps prosper themselves.

 

What I would say though, is if he or anyone else wants to sign a player once they've hit the agreed cap limit, then the total value of that players contract should be paid over to a central fund, then we can avoid mad cap fly by night sorts from landing clubs with mountains of debts before swanning off into the sunset.  The centrally held money would be repaid to the players club over time as the contract runs down, but any interest made on this cash would be retained by the central body and be used to fund development for the game as a whole and be considered a "luxury tax".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people like Koukash want to spend beyond the cap I'd let them go for it personally, I see no benefit in holding back, money doesn't guarantee success and if he ends up paying out transfer fees as well as big wages it opens up the opportunity for shrewd clubs to cash in and perhaps prosper themselves.

 

What I would say though, is if he or anyone else wants to sign a player once they've hit the agreed cap limit, then the total value of that players contract should be paid over to a central fund, then we can avoid mad cap fly by night sorts from landing clubs with mountains of debts before swanning off into the sunset.  The centrally held money would be repaid to the players club over time as the contract runs down, but any interest made on this cash would be retained by the central body and be used to fund development for the game as a whole and be considered a "luxury tax".

One club spending high causes wage inflation, which affects all clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One club spending high causes wage inflation, which affects all clubs.

And only those stupid enough to spend what they don't have will suffer - pretty much as they do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And only those stupid enough to spend what they don't have will suffer - pretty much as they do today.

 

But then you end up in a situation like it was without any salary cap... I can see that one marquee signing per team might act to prevent that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then you end up in a situation like it was without any salary cap... I can see that one marquee signing per team might act to prevent that.

I'd have no objection if people want to try the idea of the marquee signing and see how it goes, it strikes me as being more of a shuffling of the deckchairs on the titanic than significant change though.

 

The situation pre-cap wasn't as bleak as people make out if your reference was in terms of competition, yes Wigan may have cleaned up, but go back and look at some of those league tables 93/94 springs to mind, 3 clubs tied on level points at the top of the table, 92/93 we had just the two teams tied at the top.  If you mean pre-cap clubs were financial basket cases, well some seemingly seem to have managed to carry that on under the cap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And only those stupid enough to spend what they don't have will suffer - pretty much as they do today.

The problem is that they are not the only ones that suffer.  If there are a group of roughly equal clubs and one spends far more than it can afford, they either win everything and the other clubs win nothing, or the other clubs try and compete.  Either scenario damages the competition as a whole.  In many forms of business it would be consdiered predatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marquee signing together with allowances for club academy developed players seem to make sense to me. Potential higher media profile and interest from sponsors in having top name players participating and they can help in developing youngsters and setting higher aspirations.

 

Allowances for academy developed players in the salary cap also helps in giving more money of the salary cap towards higher profile players too. This in addition to encouraging teams to focus on academy development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my idea would be that we dispense with the salary cap but introduce two things

Clubs must spend a minimum of the equivalent of 15% of their overall salary cap on youth structure and player pathways.

e.g. Warrington spend 2Million on salary so also have to spend 300K on Youth pathways

Any junior signed from outside the clubs immediate area are are subject to two transfer fees:

** One to the amateur club from which the junior was signed

** One to the predominant Professional Club from the players home

e.g. Wigan signing a player from Wakefield's WF5 postcode would trigger a set transfers payable to Wakefield Trinity (15K) and the players Community Club i.e. Eastmoor ARLFC (5K)

The benefit of this is that it will force every club to invest in their youth pathway and any considerations of buying a new player also carries the added responsibility of finding the money that would be due to the Youth system. Over time such continuous and higher investment into the youth pathways would produce more and higher quality players and begin to negate the need for external signings.

The Community Club transfers fee would help fund the amateur game allowing it to stabilise and to grow

The Pro Transfer fee would help to limit the amount of raids into other areas and would help to distribute the wealth in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my idea would be that we dispense with the salary cap but introduce two things

Clubs must spend a minimum of the equivalent of 15% of their overall salary cap on youth structure and player pathways.

e.g. Warrington spend 2Million on salary so also have to spend 300K on Youth pathways

Any junior signed from outside the clubs immediate area are are subject to two transfer fees:

** One to the amateur club from which the junior was signed

** One to the predominant Professional Club from the players home

e.g. Wigan signing a player from Wakefield's WF5 postcode would trigger a set transfers payable to Wakefield Trinity (15K) and the players Community Club i.e. Eastmoor ARLFC (5K)

The benefit of this is that it will force every club to invest in their youth pathway and any considerations of buying a new player also carries the added responsibility of finding the money that would be due to the Youth system. Over time such continuous and higher investment into the youth pathways would produce more and higher quality players and begin to negate the need for external signings.

The Community Club transfers fee would help fund the amateur game allowing it to stabilise and to grow

The Pro Transfer fee would help to limit the amount of raids into other areas and would help to distribute the wealth in the game.

 

 

For youth development and community club I can see benefit.  However whilst possible increasing numbers how do we stop the drain of top players to NRL.   Just as the players become household or dare we say marquee names or high profile,  hence attract more media and sponsor interest they still go off to NRL and we don't get that benefit of top profile/highest talent in our game to help raise profile of the sport.

 

Although just re-read and you say remove salary cap... so forget my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any junior signed from outside the clubs immediate area are are subject to two transfer fees:

** One to the amateur club from which the junior was signed

** One to the predominant Professional Club from the players home

e.g. Wigan signing a player from Wakefield's WF5 postcode would trigger a set transfers payable to Wakefield Trinity (15K) and the players Community Club i.e. Eastmoor ARLFC (5K)

The benefit of this is that it will force every club to invest in their youth pathway and any considerations of buying a new player also carries the added responsibility of finding the money that would be due to the Youth system. Over time such continuous and higher investment into the youth pathways would produce more and higher quality players and begin to negate the need for external signings.

The Community Club transfers fee would help fund the amateur game allowing it to stabilise and to grow

The Pro Transfer fee would help to limit the amount of raids into other areas and would help to distribute the wealth in the game.

 

I disagree with your suggested benefit - it actually encourages (using your example) wakefield to neglect the youth system. Provided that they sign all their players from senior clubs, they are getting money for nothing. Why, if you are getting 15k for allowing Wigan to develop players from your area, would you go and develop them yourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Club owners who don't want to offer others the opportunity for reaching a higher level of investment, ambition and competition with others in the marketplace..

Perhaps, just perhaps it wasn't the right decision.

im not saying its right or wrong, id be very happy if wecwere able to sign superstars like Burgess instead of Union, but then I dont have to dip my hand in my pocket to fund it.

The voting rules are in place to stop individuals making bad decisions which harm the game, the decision must be respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We have no way of knowing it has not saved clubs from going under.  We can say it has not prevented any club from going under, but it might well have saved a few.  One club spending more than they can afford (hardly an unusual event) raises the wages for all players and would impact all clubs.  The problem it seems to me is still having more places in Super League than viable Super League clubs.

 

 2. Perhaps, ideally, we would have a Super League with stronger clubs (even from France if needs be, but that is another argument), with a salary cap that they could all afford

 

1. Can't agree more. Have said this for years and it's most marked by the last licensing committee decisions. there were 14 SL places up for grabs and 17 applications

 

Out of the 17 only Hull. Leeds, Saints, and Wire were up to the licensing requirements (FACT btw) hence the licensing system did not work making P & R the obvious choice as that apparently will work (saracasm alert) 

 

2. Les Catalans seem to have met the challenges that left them a "B" and it is suggested Toulouse can replicate Catalans success Saints should have also moved up to an "A". Bradford could get to an "A"

 

Fundamentally we have big clubs, we just need to ensure they can all operate competently and compete and I disagree with you it is just a matter of being able to spend a salary cap they can all afford.

 

We have enough investment in the game to work out our best strategy which as Padge often says is one SL club per region, and then ensure they are funded adequately so they can compete evenly and that must include a quality academy at each club - this is what gives Wigan, Saints and leeds the edge over clubs who can match them for salary cap spend.

 

And to summarise this sticking to the subject of this thread, The game does not need the likes of Mr. Koucash if all he wants to do are his actions of pushing for the cap to be scrapped and unlimited spends on marquee players, and his alleged actions of trying to throw money at juniors from other clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not saying its right or wrong, id be very happy if wecwere able to sign superstars like Burgess instead of Union, but then I dont have to dip my hand in my pocket to fund it.

The voting rules are in place to stop individuals making bad decisions which harm the game, the decision must be respected.

Neither do the clubs if they don't wish to. Besides sooner or later the game has to stop low balling itself in the guise of good business, if clubs haven't the cash then they don't have to do it. We need to be sophisticated enough to have a multitude of approaches at the same time and stop pretending RL exists in a bubble. How can we compete with other influences if we don't provide the mechanisms to compete. Is there any other business where investors are invited but then informed of rules that are designed not to allow them to do their best. 

 

The clubs didn't vote they blocked it, bad PR going public on creating a system that makes it easier to lose top named players. And you assume that clubs don't have agenda's to that which is the good for the game. Ego will play a large part in the make up of the owners and so decision making is not always rational or fair. I bet MK could buy all the owners with the change in his car ashtray. That is one frictionable surface but frankly it's more than possible the man is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your suggested benefit - it actually encourages (using your example) wakefield to neglect the youth system. Provided that they sign all their players from senior clubs, they are getting money for nothing. Why, if you are getting 15k for allowing Wigan to develop players from your area, would you go and develop them yourselves?

because they've got to under that system.

If Wakefield signed all their players from senior clubs, lets say for 800K total salary then under the system I suggest they'll still have to invest 120k into their youth system. Beyond that the RFL could set a minimum amount of investment acceptable at say 150k per club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr K could buy every club and have change.  His point is very simple.  To attract more fans to every club we need STARS - no - not journeymen - STARS.   Billy Slater at Leeds.   SBW @ Huddersfield.  Jonny Wilkinson even @ Widnes.   Greg Inglis @ Saints etc etc .  We need to show the world that RL is THE game.  Somehow we need to pull out of this lethargic situation which employs 100+ Jobsworths  at Red Hall and put the money into attracting NEW fans to this great game.  A revolution is required & Marwan is the man to lead it.

 

Really? How greater is Koucash's wealth than: Davy, Caddick, Leneghan, McManus, Moran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, and I only intended to disagree with one aspect of your very reasonable post.

 

Contraction would be unfortunate, but I fear it is reality.  

 

Hull

Leeds

Les Catalans

Salford

St Helens

Toulouse

Warrington

Wigan

- plus maybe up to two others.  

 

It is a list brutally based on where the finance for a club is and little else.    

 

So eight clubs for your superleague? (BTW Bob, too late it's already been done). You've successfully isolated 29 clubs and condemned them to a steady decline to nothing with that post.

 

Your wrong on the list with Salford, they don't have resources to be a Superleague club only a rich man to pay for empty seats and buy the players they cannot produce. If Rich men make viable SL clubs then you should add in Widnes, HKR, and Fartown at least. Bradford have a rich man now too.

 

On the subject of contraction where a Superleague clubs competes well and starts to produce players and attracts fans that is actually expansion. Look how far Wigan attract players and fans from? That's expansion.

 

The loss of Bramley and Hunslet to Leeds would not be contraction - that's pins in maps, the success of Leeds against the decline of their neighbours has seen the game stronger in the region.Take the Calder region where there's three clubs. less people are watching, less are playing, now that's contraction.

 

Koucash's defeat was a victory for realism, but beware championing it Bob.

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