Sign in to follow this  
Stuarty

Should the Salary cap in Super League be Scrapped?

Scrap the salary cap in Super League?  

65 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Salary cap in Super League be Scrapped?

    • yes
      31
    • No
      34


Recommended Posts

Yes, or at least increased as it should have done anyway with inflation. I think if it’s going to be kept it also needs a minimum wage.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think scrapping it will achieve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already been increased...£2m next year and £2.1m in 2020...

Add to that 2 marquee players who only go down on the cap at a maximum of £150k each..

So...... we essentially have a virtual salary cap...yes officially it'll be £2.1m but the reality is clubs could spend £3 or £4m if they wanted too...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, because certain clubs have been inventive with their accounting since forever and deliberately cheated the system including avoiding relegation and winning trophy's. My own club got around the SC with a massively over the cap squad in 2016 by deferring payments of some big name players and that's why last year and this we've offloaded players and let them out on loan trying to play catchup. It would also discourage youth development by the big clubs when they can just simply paoch other clubs kids with a bigger pay cheque. Hull already have a big problem with developing our youth under Lee Radford, he'd rather sign externally than give the youth system kids a go, that's really a circle of he and his team not developing them properly.

The baloney over Watts going mid season because there was a spat between him and Taylor and/or Radford saying his discipline was unacceptable is as laughable as when Adam Pearson said we are not selling joe Westerman and then 2 weeks later it was announced we'd 'sold' him to Warrington for £150k or some random figure they plucked out of the air to appease fans. Hull fans then thought we'd have a load of SC space only to find out we couldn't even squeeze a desperate Lee Smith on our books who would have played for pocket money given he had no contract when he had a trial with us. Not only did Pearson lie to fans, Motu Tony did too as he said we had cap for a signing, coincidentally just as the club were trying to flog season tickets.

The club will find that signing 4 no-marques for next year and announcing them as a big deal won't wash with fans and season ticket sales will drop like a stone.

Maybe the club need to find some jobs for the wags?

What is going to be the weighting for London, surely it can't be the stupid 10% figure as before because that's utter lunacy and takes no account of costs of living even if you were located outside the M25. It t'aint tellins/wigan/Hull/pretty much all of W.Yorkshire where you can buy a house for 3s6d and rents for a 3 bed house are around the same as a weeks rent for a 2 bed flat in W/London 

Edited by Denton Rovers RLFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the Salary cap in Super League be Scrapped?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Padge said:

What do you think scrapping it will achieve?

Can you list the achievements of the salary cap and show how it has  improved the sport/profession for players or spectators???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure there is much desire for it amongst the clubs.

If the sport generates more income and the weaker teams become wealthier then I would suggest it’s a good idea to increase the cap and retain the best talent however the talent will be spread out.

If we increase it now, without increasing the revenue the sport generates all that will happen is the rich clubs pull away. Its desperately unlikely the likes of Cas will emerge like they did last year as their best players will want more money that will be available elsewhere and consequently the likes of Powell will find it harder to be loyal to a smaller club as their chances of winning will be that much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am maybe wrong with an 8 team Super League because I have found out since I said it that fans in any sport find it [more] interesting to play each another within a league 2 times than [the boring] 4 times. 

 

So is this the best way forward? 

Super League expands to 14 clubs playing 29 games ending with a top-5 playoff. The team finishing 14th would be relegated and 13th would play 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the Championship in a relegation playoff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an idea that the salary cap exists to protect clubs from themselves.  Realistically, it just protects the status quo.  Cards on the table, how much do you truly pay your players?  Essentially, the big clubs are biggest fish in their amateur RL pools and consistently bring in the best local young players on a conveyor belt.  There are all sorts of cap exemptions to reduce the cap hit of long time players.  It only affects the first 20-something players, players under a certain age are cap-exempt. If a player doesn't cut it, you've got somebody as good in the juniors and you move him on.

Take London.  Realistically, the only way they make a splash long-term is for some idiot to throw money at it.  Right now, he's forbidden from doing so by the salary cap, even with creative accounting.  Even with a salary cap they basically went #### up, it didn't stop Bradford or Crusaders from going into administration, nor did it stop Wakey or Widnes.  It's a pointless rule but, so long as they're not stupid, it keeps the top clubs at the top.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it but increase it and levy fines on teams which exceed the cap as Major League Baseball does, e.g. 30% of the excess for the first occurrence, 40% for the second occurrence, and 50% for any subsequent occurrence, with the fine proceeds divided among the teams which stay under the cap amount each season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bbfaz said:

There's an idea that the salary cap exists to protect clubs from themselves.  Realistically, it just protects the status quo.  Cards on the table, how much do you truly pay your players?  Essentially, the big clubs are biggest fish in their amateur RL pools and consistently bring in the best local young players on a conveyor belt.  There are all sorts of cap exemptions to reduce the cap hit of long time players.  It only affects the first 20-something players, players under a certain age are cap-exempt. If a player doesn't cut it, you've got somebody as good in the juniors and you move him on.

Take London.  Realistically, the only way they make a splash long-term is for some idiot to throw money at it.  Right now, he's forbidden from doing so by the salary cap, even with creative accounting.  Even with a salary cap they basically went #### up, it didn't stop Bradford or Crusaders from going into administration, nor did it stop Wakey or Widnes.  It's a pointless rule but, so long as they're not stupid, it keeps the top clubs at the top.

I do not follow that logic. The cap and the academy have no bearing on each other really? In all honesty if your logic follows, then the so called lesser sides would have a better chance to have surplus cash to invest in a bigger/better academy with a smaller cap in place. If we had a bigger cap, anything that is currently over and above would be spent on chasing the big boys which is likely to lead to overspending and some smaller clubs going pop.

The cap obviously shackles the bigger clubs and brings the chasing pack closer, it does not keep the bigger clubs at the top at all.

Leeds make money hand over fist and have made Hetherington rich and Caddick even richer but in the main we have been cap restricted. Saints and Wigan have sugar daddies too and could also spend. If we had no cap limits we would have a much better chance of retaining the better players, and attracting better players from down under and even from yawnion.

The retained players and the new players in would be going to richer clubs that could afford them though and therefore widening the gap to the financially weaker teams.

The answer, which is easier said than done, is making the sport wealthier in general. If all the clubs were better off, they would all retain more players and attract better players to their own clubs from down under etc.

It is abundantly clear that the little weasel Elstone is in bed with some of the bigger clubs which will ultimately lead to a structure that benefits the current status quo IMO. That may be good for my club but it will be bad for the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

If we had no cap limits we would have a much better chance of retaining the better players, and attracting better players from down under and even from yawnion.

That might be true, yes. However, my worry would be that by trying to compete financially,  it would cause RU and the NFL to increase the amounts that they pay, in order to preserve their advantage. This would mean that the situation would remain as it is now, but everyone (English SL, NRL, RU) would be paying out more in wages. That's what has happened over the years in football, with clubs being forced to pay out more and more to try and stay ahead or remain level with the others. Great news for the players, yes, but I'm not sure that starting an 'arms race' is the best thing for the sport as a whole. Maybe it's a bit defeatist, but I kind of think let's just accept that we're 3rd in the financial pecking order right now. If the NRL and RU are able to offer more money and attract the top players, so be it. I don't really see it as being any different to what fans in other sports have to accept. For example, Scottish football fans know that the best players in their league are going to be targeted by richer English clubs. There's no point in Scottish clubs saying let's pay higher wages to try and keep them, because English clubs will just increase their offer until they get them anyway. It just means that all clubs have to pay out more, and the only winners are the players and agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

That might be true, yes. However, my worry would be that by trying to compete financially,  it would cause RU and the NFL to increase the amounts that they pay, in order to preserve their advantage. This would mean that the situation would remain as it is now, but everyone (English SL, NRL, RU) would be paying out more in wages. That's what has happened over the years in football, with clubs being forced to pay out more and more to try and stay ahead or remain level with the others. Great news for the players, yes, but I'm not sure that starting an 'arms race' is the best thing for the sport as a whole. Maybe it's a bit defeatist, but I kind of think let's just accept that we're 3rd in the financial pecking order right now. If the NRL and RU are able to offer more money and attract the top players, so be it. I don't really see it as being any different to what fans in other sports have to accept. For example, Scottish football fans know that the best players in their league are going to be targeted by richer English clubs. There's no point in Scottish clubs saying let's pay higher wages to try and keep them, because English clubs will just increase their offer until they get them anyway. It just means that all clubs have to pay out more, and the only winners are the players and agents.

I am not an advocate for increasing the cap unless it is linked directly to an increase in revenue generated by the sport as a whole. Ie a new TV deal with much more income would be an obvious starting point.

The NRL and domestic RU is not really light years ahead of us and we should aspire to grow our sport whereby we can pay more and take their stars.

The NRL has grown more than we have recently and the exchange rate over the last decade has only weakened our ability to attract them over. The new deal for RU is interesting but again we should absolutely be looking to grow the league. They are not so far in front its like comparing Scottish football to the richest league in the world.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

The NRL and domestic RU is not really light years ahead of us and we should aspire to grow our sport whereby we can pay more and take their stars.

But once we're paying more and taking their stars, won't the NRL forums be having the same conversation that we're having now? They'll be sitting there saying that they need to grow, pay more, and take the stars back from SL. Where does it stop? Unless the two leagues can reach some sort of equilibrium that keeps a 50/50 spread of the best players, or there's an agreement between the two leagues not to keep upping the wages in an attempt to attract the best players, then how are you going to ever stop this 'arms race'? I just don't want a football type situation where lots of money comes into the sport, and then the vast majority of it disappears out again straight away into players pay packets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

But once we're paying more and taking their stars, won't the NRL forums be having the same conversation that we're having now? They'll be sitting there saying that they need to grow, pay more, and take the stars back from SL. Where does it stop? Unless the two leagues can reach some sort of equilibrium that keeps a 50/50 spread of the best players, or there's an agreement between the two leagues not to keep upping the wages in an attempt to attract the best players, then how are you going to ever stop this 'arms race'? I just don't want a football type situation where lots of money comes into the sport, and then the vast majority of it disappears out again straight away into players pay packets.

I do totally understand what you are saying and I agree with you the way football has gone, especially in England its terrible. So so much money all generated by the fans paying for Sky, which was then watered down and the fans now have to pay for BT in addition. All to pay a group of prima-donna’s an abhorrent amount of cash.

I still do not think it is that relative though as the numbers are so different. The entire salary cap for a full season, to pay the top 25 players, is the same as the wages for Alexis Sanchez for a 5 week month and he can hardly get a game at Man U.

If the league was three times bigger than it is and all the players were earning triple what they are now, that is still only 3 or 4 months wages of a top footballer compared to the squad for a year. It would also still be peanuts compared to other sports which pay so much more.

As I mentioned previously though, growing the league is very easy to say and very hard to do. If we managed to grow the league, the NRL couldn’t just retaliate they would also have to grow theirs first to have the finances to retaliate. In our league, once you take out the top few earners at each club you are left with a group of guys earning executive middle management, guy of the street, level wages.

It is all pie in the sky though, my point was originally we need to grow the league collectively and ultimately earn more money to invest in new talent or nurture more talent. Lifting the cap now is only unshackling the rich clubs which will only weaken the league in the long run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never get top NRL players in England again, current SOO regulars and similar.

If they are on $500-800 Oz you would need to pay them 50% more to move to Super League.

The deals top  players get from Sponsors and third party arrangements can not be easily matched.

Who were the last top players brought to England that were not blackballed or banned by the NRL or journeymen taking a longer contract on more money to wind out their careers?

Matt King?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allora said:

You will never get top NRL players in England again, current SOO regulars and similar.

If they are on $500-800 Oz you would need to pay them 50% more to move to Super League.

The deals top  players get from Sponsors and third party arrangements can not be easily matched.

Who were the last top players brought to England that were not blackballed or banned by the NRL or journeymen taking a longer contract on more money to wind out their careers?

Matt King?

 

Never is quite final!

The UK has shown time and time again, especially in recent years, that we pay and pay and pay for sport in massive numbers, we also turn out to watch sport in massive numbers especially when it’s surrounded by hype.

The TV deal we have over here is pathetic as is the investment in the production that is afforded to the sport by the rights holders. As a consequence we have been going backwards for several years whilst the NRL has progressed. Our league could flourish with the right guidance and be worth considerably more than it currently is, by stark contrast the NRL has already been exploited close to its maximum.

Where does the NRL progress? You have networks fighting over the rights already and they’ve been bled dry. Maybe you could expand further globally but that is a much harder sell.

Not long after Super League started the exchange rate was 3/1 and it’s not long ago that it was down to 1.5/1 which clearly is also a big factor. That had had a huge effect on attracting people over here in the first place and further now has the opposite effect in sending them over to the NRL.

You have a wealthier league and the exchange rate is also currently in your favour but the wind does change from time to time.

The landscape is changing quickly with broadcast rights and the way people watch TV as well, i.e. streaming. As an example Italian and Spanish football rights in the UK have dropped off the traditional TV broadcaster’s networks onto a streaming service.

I am not suggesting things will reverse overnight but it’s not beyond the realms of imagination that things are shaken up at this end and we sell the media rights for something much more respectable and the value of the league could be doubled or tripled quickly. You could then see a change in the tide.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

I do not follow that logic. The cap and the academy have no bearing on each other really? In all honesty if your logic follows, then the so called lesser sides would have a better chance to have surplus cash to invest in a bigger/better academy with a smaller cap in place. If we had a bigger cap, anything that is currently over and above would be spent on chasing the big boys which is likely to lead to overspending and some smaller clubs going pop.

The cap obviously shackles the bigger clubs and brings the chasing pack closer, it does not keep the bigger clubs at the top at all.

Leeds make money hand over fist and have made Hetherington rich and Caddick even richer but in the main we have been cap restricted. Saints and Wigan have sugar daddies too and could also spend. If we had no cap limits we would have a much better chance of retaining the better players, and attracting better players from down under and even from yawnion.

The retained players and the new players in would be going to richer clubs that could afford them though and therefore widening the gap to the financially weaker teams.

The answer, which is easier said than done, is making the sport wealthier in general. If all the clubs were better off, they would all retain more players and attract better players to their own clubs from down under etc.

It is abundantly clear that the little weasel Elstone is in bed with some of the bigger clubs which will ultimately lead to a structure that benefits the current status quo IMO. That may be good for my club but it will be bad for the game.

Ultimately, a player's Salary Cap Value is not the same as the amount they'll earn in a season.  There are special dispensations (£100,000 of total salary cap relief) for club trained players.  Club trained marquee players have half the salary cap hit (£75,000 compared to £150,000) so you're better off using the marquee player exemption to keep your best players rather than sign others.  Not just that but if you're outside the top 25 highest-paid players or under 21, you don't count against the cap at all.  Then, when those players become really good and play for England, the club receives a bonus.

So, given the best clubs get the best youngsters because they're in the richest recruitment areas, the salary cap and your quality of academy players very much have something to do with each other.  I'm not aware that there's a limit on academy spending either, meaning you can outbid others for the best coaches and afford better facilities.  Whether facilities make a difference to the end quality of the players is unknown but a more impressive facility makes for better recruitment, that's for sure.

Small clubs have gone pop with the cap in place.  Any number of teams down the years haven't spent to the level of the salary cap.  London spent the salary cap for years and didn't achieve anything.  If it brings the pack closer to the top clubs, you'd expect to see a title spread similar to NRL but, still, only three teams have won Super League in the past 15 seasons.  The list of League Leaders and Grand Final runners-up is pretty short too.

I know what the intention of the salary cap is but it doesn't work that way in practice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increased.

Not wishing to derail this thread, but on the subject, should teams' salary cap spending be made public?

For instance, if you look at Jackson Hastings, who must command a half-decent wage; how can Salford on such low gates be able to afford him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

Increased.

Not wishing to derail this thread, but on the subject, should teams' salary cap spending be made public?

For instance, if you look at Jackson Hastings, who must command a half-decent wage; how can Salford on such low gates be able to afford him? 

The 50% of income was scrapped years ago so it doesn’t really matter as long as they are still paying players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap the cap and trust clubs to run themselves properly

Address the some of the other issues with a points system to encourage clubs to build squads how we want them to be built

Edited by scotchy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have long been an advocate of a big rise to the salary cap but can certainly also see the argument for completely scrapping it. In many ways it is a safety mechanism for the big clubs in that it makes it difficult for a smaller club or a club with money to break the big clubs stranglehold whilst giving smaller clubs the charade they can complete which isn't really the case. It allows Wigan, Leeds et al to remain on top without them spending too much whilst ensuring that any future Toronto's can't spend £5 million and sign their stars. A Blackburn, Chelsea or Man City type team would find it extremely difficult to do what they did in Super League for instance.

It is all very well the posters on here that say it should only rise with revenue increasing but the fact is this has often never happened and it hasn't even kept pace with inflation. That is the reason where now any meagre rise, like the recent £100,000 or so a year rises which again is little more than inflation anyway,  results in complaints from some quarters. The simple fact is if the game had simply kept place with inflation the salary cap would now be around £3 million. If we had also added any TV deal increases it would be over £4 million. That is how far the game has fallen behind from its 2000 level. Maybe that is also the reason why there are few real stars in Super League and little strength in depth and why fans are choosing not to pay more and more every year whilst getting less and less for it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday