Salary Cap Showdown

[The Parksider]

Later this week there's a meet on the Salary Cap.

 

Tony Smith (I assume as Mr. Morans mouthpiece) says raise the cap so we can compete with the NRL "we've got to have a similar cap" and "we keep our top teams back to where the lowest teams can compete with them even then they (the lower clubs) don't spend all of their salary cap"....

 

Expect Koukash to agree.

 

Ian Lenegan is "bemused" that we may put "half a £Million of debt on our 12 clubs" "Will we get RU and NRL players if we raise the cap?" "Will it make existing players better paying them 30-40% more?" and "If we pay Sean O'Loughlin £50,000 more will he play better".

 

Schofield says "All that will happen is £Millions will go out of the game unnecessarily"

 

Lockwood says there's more important things - In Australia the have "fine tuned" and "exceptional systems" for player development where here "we can't agree on dual reg, academy or reserves" 

 

Hetherington says "when you have a level salary cap you get a more level competition and that is good for everyone"

 

There would seem to be no half way argument here, no compromise.

 

This seems to be Moran & Koukash .v. Hetherington & Lenegan

 

One side of the apparent argument goes as far as suggesting wallets should be opened to buy the best players anywhere in the world in direct competition with NRL & RU, because this would be great for the game - something accepted by the Marquee rule vote, the other is just as polarised - we can't afford it and they won't come anyway,  just make the best of whom we have which is fine for Leeds and Wigan who can pull the best juniors.

 

The truth is probably in the middle where it always is. Unleash Moran and Koukash and they can then buy up Leeds and Wigan's best players??

 

Wouldn't that be some heck of a row.....

[Saint Toppy]

Last vote McManus voted to keep the SC the same because he thought it wasn't the right time to be increasing it when there were still quite a few clubs not able to spend the current cap. He also said that the new TV deal should see all the clubs able to spend the full cap so then there was a possibility of raising it.

Be interesting to see which way he votes this time round given Saints are one of the clubs who have directors who are easily able to compete with Moran & Koukash if they wished and pay for an increased cap.

[thebull13]

Let them spend. If some teams can't afford to spend the cap anyway why should they hold back the ones who want to go above and beyond?

[Gates1]

Would assume Cas, Hull KR, Widnes, Wakefield will all add tgeir votes to the the no vote.

Guess Catalan and Hull will join the yes.

If Saints and Hudds join the yes would make it 6 all. Hard to predict how they will go.

I just hope the thought of paying Jon Wilkin anymore is a step too far for McManus and he decides to say no.

[The Parksider]

McManus said that the new TV deal should see all the clubs able to spend the full cap 

 

This didn't happen according to Smith/Moran

 

If some teams can't afford to spend the cap anyway why should they hold back the ones who want to go above and beyond?

 

See Hetherington's quote.

[The Parksider]

Would assume Cas, Hull KR, Widnes, Wakefield - no vote.

Guess Catalan and Hull -  yes vote

If Saints and Hudds join the yes would make it 6 all. 

 

Leeds no, Wire yes, Wigan no....

 

Salford's boss Marwan "Two contracts" Koukash has already voted with his wallet

[Gates1]

Let them spend. If some teams can't afford to spend the cap anyway why should they hold back the ones who want to go above and beyond?

That's fine if their are 12 clubs who can compete at a reletively similar level of spending. Their isn't.

Hold them back from what anyway? Trying to compete against NRL teams playing their 1st pre season friendly? The laughable thing is that if we do ever get to beating them consistantly watch them 'invite' the SL teams to go to Australia and play a couple of games into the NRL season. It will make this year's offerings look competitive.

Talk about knee jerk reactions!

[Gates1]

Leeds no, Wire yes, Wigan no....

Salford's boss Marwan "Two contracts" Koukash has already voted with his wallet

Yep was taking the Leeds, Salford, Wire and Wigan votes as given based on quotes earlier in thread.

[Spidey]

Quote from Marwan last week:

"Would love to see an increase in SC, however the current TV and the RFL sponsorship deals cannot support a higher level"

[Gates1]

Quote from Marwan last week:

"Would love to see an increase in SC, however the current TV and the RFL sponsorship deals cannot support a higher level"

Forgot about that. Salford's vote might not be clear cut.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

You can spend more but who will come to an inferior league unless you career is ending. Word is that Jamie Lyon is past it at 34 for the Sea Eagles but although not up to NRL standard a two year swansong at Langtree Park awaits?

[GeordieSaint]

You can spend more but who will come to an inferior league unless you career is ending. Word is that Jamie Lyon is past it at 34 for the Sea Eagles but although not up to NRL standard a two year swansong at Langtree Park awaits?

 

A very realistic post! Increasing the cap won't solve any problems for the game in England. If the WCC taught us anything, it's that there are bigger issues in the game over here than simply paying the current player base more... it isn't going to make them better players; just waste valuable resource like what happened in 1996/1997...

[Derwent]

The salary cap issue boils down to 2 things really. If you want stronger club sides and aren't bothered about the heritage of the players then raise it. On the other hand, if you want to see more young British players given the opportunity and more investment into player development then don't raise it. Raising the salary cap might allow Leeds/Wigan/Saints to compete in the WCC but it'll have the perverse affect of weakening England's long term progress.

[steef]

Would a system where the cap is raised on the condition that all teams operate a reserve and accademy team so clubs could attract/retain stars but junior development would not suffer as a result. The reintroduction of the reserves could keep more players in a full time environment. All players would be included in the cap. Just an idea.

[Fabou]

If you want to increase the salary cap to increase the level of RL in England, I would say that it will not help. What would help is to improve the awareness of the 10 years old boys and let them dream on becoming SuperLeague stars, like ossies 10 years old players are dreaming about becoming NRL stars. 

the more awareness, the more potential future local/english talents in the clubs... 

 

if you want to increase the salary cap for another reason, hard to judge for me, i do not have any opinion about that.

[Kris]

A non event

 

Rhinos, Giants, Hull KR, Wakefield, Wigan, Widnes and Cas will go no automatically and this has been their standpoint for some time, the Giants didn't care much for the marquee rule anyway

 

Saints, Warrington, Catalan and possibly Hull FC are yes's.

 

Salford wont rock the boat because Koukash has spent enough for the time being as per his twitter feed, he seems OK with the marquee signing and is still seeking to get more on board, I actually think he is under the cap given his signings this year

 

I think there will be a sub text though and I am hoping its more than development of the international club game but includes a chat about development of reserve players who right now may as well be P%$$%^& in the wind as they aren't playing meaningful rugby

[shrek]

Gladly see it scrapped never mind raised, not because I support a club who will rush out throwing the cash about if it were, but because I support a club whose chairman I'd trust to run it as a business and to live within its means.

 

Would gladly see every penny spent centrally trying to police/enforce the cap go into player development, the clubs can look after themselves, if they spend more than they can afford, tough.

[Guest]

Would a system where the cap is raised on the condition that all teams operate a reserve and accademy team so clubs could attract/retain stars but junior development would not suffer as a result. The reintroduction of the reserves could keep more players in a full time environment. All players would be included in the cap. Just an idea.

I was going to post the exact same thing and maybe even go further and suggest that clubs have to invest a set amount of say £20,000 on grassroots RL in expansion areas like for example the North East, Liverpool, West Midlands etc.

[Mark S]

I think an incremental increase of say 5 to 10% per year would make sense, with dispensation for home grown players.

[Saint Toppy]

 

Saints, Warrington, Catalan and possibly Hull FC are yes's.

 

 

Did you read my earlier post, Saints voted No last time but would consider voting yes when all the clubs are able to fully spend the current cap limit. It sounds like there are still some clubs not doing this / not able to do this so there's no guarantee of Saints voting Yes this time

[super major]

I think an incremental increase of say 5 to 10% per year would make sense, with dispensation for home grown players.

Think you have it right there. Maybe need to redefine what home grown means as I seem to recall lads from Hull fc  academy counted on HKR's home grown quota. There needs to be some reward for clubs who invest money and time into player development. It must be galling in particular in OZ when a club brings a player through from say 14 years old and loses out at 20 because of the cap that year

[Adeybull]

Just where do folk think the extra income to pay for an increased salary cap will come from?  Especially if (sensibly IMO) it would come with conditions regarding reserve and academy sides and youth development?

 

I suspect the increased TV monies have probably saved at least four of the current SL clubs from either oblivion or permanent recognition by their owners that they would never be able to compete with the rest? For several others, I suspect a big sigh of relief from owners that they don't have to put a load more in every year just to compete?

 

If the salary cap was scrapped, or increased by enough to make competition with the NRL a viable proposition, I suspect only a small handful of SL club owners would feel both able and willing to take advantage. And who would want to watch or play in a competition that had reverted to being like pre-SL?  Except instead of one club being totally dominant, you might have an oligarchy of three or four?

 

Absent a MUCH bigger TV deal, all I could see scrapping or very substantially increasing the salary cap would achieve is reducing SL to a small rump of super-clubs, ultimately having to throw their lot in with Union through having no-one else to play in any meaningful way.  The current (far too low) salary cap is a symptom of far too little money in the game, not a cause of the game's shortcomings, IMO.  The cause is instead the lack of money in the game.

[Exiled Wiganer]

The marquee player rule must be enough. It should allow clubs to get a "glamour " player, while if you get the right "glamour" player, the standards across the club will rise. When Lyon was at Saints, all of the other players were able to see exactly what was required to be great, and how much hard work goes into it.

[EagleEyePie]

As others have said, there isn't exactly a huge amount of money in the game. TV revenue may have increased but some teams still seem to struggle to be competitive.

It's easy to say that the poorer clubs shouldn't be holding back those with money, but lets not forget they are all in the same league. Creating a bigger gulf in terms of the quality between top and bottom isn't going to create a more competitive league, which happens to be one of the reasons often given for the NRL being a better standard. I think it's a valid point. The competitiveness of the NRL is what has helped it grow into such a good competition and has raised the standard throughout the league. Scrap the cap and it's unlikely that we'll ever get close to that.

Some might say that we should ignore the NRL comparisons, as they are in a completely different country with a different structure to the league. We've already ditched franchises and returned to promotion and relegation. They would say look at the Premier League, without a salary cap and flourishing even though there can be a huge gulf between top and bottom.

The argument to that would be that there are a huge number of football clubs around, many of them well supported, quite a few outside the top division with the potential to generate a decent income through gate receipts and merchandising. Rugby league doesn't have that same depth. We rely on clubs that are only ever likely to generate a small amount in gate receipts and merchandising.

Maurice Lindsay realised that Super League was reliant on clubs with small fan bases and limited potential to grow, which is why he proposed mergers, to try to create teams with bigger potential fan bases that were more marketable. Of course nobody wanted that to happen and it's easy to understand why. In reality it would be just as likely that fans wouldn't have any interest in these merged clubs and they'd go bust. Lindsay did recognise one of the fundamental issues with growing the sport in this country. It's why 'expansion' should never have been scoffed at. It's essential to stop the sport from being swallowed up by competitors.

What really created the boom years for the Premier League is something that the RFL and even Super League clubs have actively prevented in the last few years. It was bidding for TV rights in the early years of the Premier League that saw the amount of money in the game sky rocket within a relatively short space of time. Televised football became a big draw and more and more broadcasters wanted a piece of the action. Rather than try to encourage investment from other broadcasters instead a new deal with Sky was negotiated early. Now there's no chance of trying to play broadcasters off against each other for several years.

In some ways I can see a reasoning behind that. Be too reckless and there's a possibility of being without a broadcaster, which would almost certainly be the death of the professional game. Once again it comes down to how marketable the sport is, and rugby league in this country just isn't marketable.

If we were to raise the cap from next season we might see huge investment from Koukash and Moran; we might see a few big names come over from the NRL. Would that really be a massive boost to the competition? The chance to see some top players might encourage some more fans but will it be a significant number? Is it really going to encourage new fans to watch the game? They might see big names but will they see competitive games, or will they see more blow-out scorelines? Would players even want to leave the NRL? Only Salford and Warrington would be capable of affording the very best from the NRL but is money alone enough to tempt them away from the lifestyle and the chance to play in one of the best leagues in world sport?

I think there are more important issues than scrapping the cap. I do think that the cap should have been raised to match inflation, but I don't know if there are any compelling reasons for a large increase. It will need far more than an increased cap to get us to the level of the NRL. Their biggest advantage is that they already produce most of the best players in the game and in a significant quantity. They have depth throughout the NRL and the levels below and good standard of junior rugby too. Raise our cap and we're still relying on bringing players thousands of miles to try to improve our competition, while they have quality packed throughout their teams. That's why improving our game from the ground up is the most important consideration. We can't even decide on whether we want a reserve league or not. We've been reducing the opportunities for young players and reducing the talent pool while it continues to grow down under. We need more people playing the game and we need to generate a good standard from Super League all the way down to grassroots.

If we just raise the cap we could end up with the scenario where rich businessmen spend large amounts of their own money (because the clubs can't generate much more cash than they already are in the short term) buying big names from the NRL for teams who can only generate a small amount of income. That makes them reliant on the investment and if that businessman then walks away they can leave behind a club with a great big deficit.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Why don't we just enter a couple of teams into the NRL? They can use all the best players then and make the step up worth the money.