Salary Cap

[the punt]

The salary cap is a waste of time, more than that it's actually damaging to the game. It should be scrapped.

1. It is too costly to monitor.

2. It restricts investment.

3. It doesn't actually do what it supposed to do.

4. It causes players to leave the game.

5. It's probably unlawful.

The salary cap has undoubtedly had a negative impact on rugby league.

[The Parksider]

Cudjoe maybe the next Hanley or Boston or whoever. So which sugar daddy is going to outbid Huddersfield's own sugar daddy Ken Davy? He might not be as rich as some there's no way any of the others mentioned are going to outbid him for any of his players or any other players. Huddersfield would have gone bust years ago but for our Ken!

As for the cap stopping players going from smaller clubs to larger and more successful ones. Well it hasn't stopped them. That's why Shenton is going from Cas and LMS from Quins both to Saints. Atkins went from Wakey to Wire as Myler went from Widnes to Salford and now Wire. Leeds have soaked up talent from Cas, Wakey etc for years.

Dally has answered you point about the cap in Australia, it's not something for me to comment on.

But I do wish to reply to your point above because once again I feel it is the other "problem" about analysing the cap.

If you feel Mr. Davey would be one of the big spenders that's fine, I wonder if Steve M. could comment on that.

But you list Shenton and LMS going to Saints.

Firstly Cas cannot afford full cap and so the best players do go elsewhere. The inability to afford to compete in Superleague yet be allowed in is questionable of course and Stevo said it was a "sin" not to spend full cap.

But your analysis that the cap is responsible for Shenton and LMS moving is wrong.

Shenton has moved from a club who is favourite to be dropped from SL who can't pay him what Saints can. That is NOT the fault of the cap.

LMS is going to Saints and signed up during a season when his beloved Quins went backwards on the pitch and when the owner was talking of wrapping the whole thing up.

Those problems that Quins had were NOT the fault of the cap.

If you take the cap away then Cas and Quins would be even less able to compete and would lose more players. Saints may as well buy Tony Clubb as well as a cover for centre and play him in the reserves etc

Atkins was at a club who struggled to make the cap and whose benefactor went into administration plus are second favourites to be booted out. He had a chance to go to Warrington and took it - how do you work out that Wakefields problems are the fault of the cap?

Myler went from an NL side to Salford - because he could play Superleague and get more money. How have you managed to blame the cap for that Ted???

Leeds will always take the best players from the Calder area as long as the three clubs share all the local fans, sponsors and players such that it leaves Leeds able to afford full cap and operate successfully in Superleague.

Had the Calder thing come off in 1996 with a new stadium then it could be that that club would easily keep the Shentons and the Atkins, and the next Burrow would go straight there. It could become a club that eventually takes players off Leeds.

The dreadful situation in the Calder area is NOT the fault of the cap.

At this point in time about 6 clubs are operating to full cap with decent marketing set ups, kids coming through, and a healthy income from fan base and top ups from directors. Across those clubs the salary cap IS working and keeping the competition even and the clubs solvent. All six have been in more than one final.

The other 8 are working towards joining the six, the expansion clubs hope the junior game will set them in good stead, three trad clubs have plans for quality grounds, one club is relying on a big marketing effort to recapture it's former big fan base, another is coming in ready to spend full cap and another made the play off elimination semi last week.

The plain fact is all these clubs currently come up short NOT BECAUSE OF THE CAP. In fact it's the very presence of the cap that keeps the current big six from running away from the rest. If the cap was removed these clubs who are making efforts to catch up would be left behind.

There are two false arguments all though this thread.

1. That the Cap prevents investment in the game . Wrong it stops rampant wage inflation

2. That the Cap is responsible for not enough quality youngsters, poor grounds, bad marketing, players moving for stability and more money from SL club to SL club, union players no longer coming, GB never beating Australia . Wrong - the salary cap was never put in place to cure these ills. The salary cap is not guilty M'Lud.

[dallymessenger]

The salary cap is a waste of time, more than that it's actually damaging to the game. It should be scrapped.

1. It is too costly to monitor.

2. It restricts investment.

3. It doesn't actually do what it supposed to do.

4. It causes players to leave the game.

5. It's probably unlawful.

The salary cap has undoubtedly had a negative impact on rugby league.

wrong.

the salary cap promotes investment. when rich clubs reach max salary cap they can spend surplus funds on extra coaches, physios, juniors etc.

if the SL doesnt help even the comp why do the nrl and american competitions have it.

players leaving to union is a short term loss for the longer term benefit of a stronger SL.

clubs have presumably signed up to the way SL is run under franchising so the point re being unlawful is also bogus

[dallymessenger]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/09/07/the-c...ion-for-gallop/

In 2010 the NRL has delivered another fiercely contested battle for the top eight and near-record average crowds in a powerful vindication of the salary cap

[dallymessenger]

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsarticle/t...ap/default.aspx

National Rugby League club Chief Executives today expressed on-going support for the NRL Salary Cap insisting it was an accurate reflection of what clubs can afford to pay.

[Steve May]

But I do wish to reply to your point above because once again I feel it is the other "problem" about analysing the cap.

If you feel Mr. Davey would be one of the big spenders that's fine, I wonder if Steve M. could comment on that.

To the best of my knowledge the Huddersfield club operates to a very strict budget and some big name players have left or signed elsewhere because the club wouldn't meet their demands.

A recent example would be Willie Mason who I understand was of genuine interest to the club but wouldn't drop to anywhere near the club's budget for him. Brett Hodgson would be another whose demands fell outside the budget the club had for him, and off he duly went to Wire where perhaps the purse strings are not kept as tightly controlled.

The club is not self-financing and relies on money being moved across from other parts of Ken Davy's considerable business empire but I think the chances of Davy going on a monster spending spree are pretty slim. It's run on a pretty tight financial footing. I don't believe any player, any player at all, would be considered important enough to break the self-imposed financial rules that Huddersfield have.

I could be wrong of course, this is all rumour and I'm not party to any internals discussions at the club, but in the past 6 or 7 years I've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that these rumours aren't true and a hell of a lot to suggest they are.

[shrek]

if the SL doesnt help even the comp why do the nrl and american competitions have it.

Different competitions in different cultures with vastly different histories.

Being a graduate of "The Parksider RL academy" and a good student to boot I am sure I don't need to tell you, but for the reference of others, prior to the salary cap in the UK only Wigan had won the title in 3 or more consecutive seasons, of the heartland clubs currently in Super League, only Castleford don't have a title to there name. So we do have a history of the pots being shared about somewhat.

You could argue and many have on here that Wigans dominance of the late 80's/early to mid 90's was an anomaly due to the mix of part and full time teams and even then some of those seasons ended up with point ties and titles decided on points difference.

So from a level competition point of view, in the UK the salary cap is a fail, there is a good argument that it actually pulls the draw bridge up and stops the smaller clubs ever breaking the mold.

[Allan Marsden]

to make it simple in the nrl youve got -

brisbane broncos - profit $3 - $4 million, revenues of $20 million plus

gold coast titans - profits of $1 million

a few sydney clubs with crowds of 20,000 and a strong leagues club behind them

the other 10 clubs its a struggle to match these clubs financially

without a salary cap youd have 6 teams max dominating the league and the rest there for show

in a professional league, without a salary cap the rich clubs will always dominate

That is simply not true Dally. Look at the original Silvertails and how Manly tried to buy success throughout the late 70's and 80's. If a League has access to vast numbers of talented players then comparative wealth becomes far less important. The scarcer player supply is then the more important / useful wealth becomes.

Simply buying a team has rarely worked. It didn't for Manly and it didn't for Leeds in the 80's. In terms of any RL team, the club set up / coaching / developing harmony / understanding amongst a group of players, players having an affinity with the club / area are often vital for success. In Australia there will always be players who choose where they want to play based on where they want to Live. Hannat shows that.

[Allan Marsden]

dont agree. the salary cap most certainly has worked wonders in the nrl so its not a co-incidence those same things are happening in SL.

and until every club spends the full salary cap in SL, you cant really judge its effectiveness.

its only now starting to work.

salary caps have been shown to work elsewhere like the american sports where the nrl got the idea from

Dally how has the salary cap worked wonders in Aus? Remember Aus is the perfect place to have a cap with so much playing talent available. Maybe an abundance of playing talent is the key to a more equal competition NOT a salary cap?

NRL clubs still have financial woes. Cronulla being the obvious example. Whatsmore, even with so much playing talent available, St George week in week out look dominant. There will always be a club / team dominant. Will Cronulla be Minor Premiers in 2011? 2012?

Many people in Aus, most notably Gus Gould are against the Salary Cap (which at least is being increased there) because countless star players have been taken from the NRL and the likes of Gould argue has made the competition weaker.

You cannot compare the NRL with SL One has an abundance of playing talent. The other has an acute shortage of playing talent

[Allan Marsden]

Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?

[Maximus Decimus]

Dally how has the salary cap worked wonders in Aus? Remember Aus is the perfect place to have a cap with so much playing talent available. Maybe an abundance of playing talent is the key to a more equal competition NOT a salary cap?

NRL clubs still have financial woes. Cronulla being the obvious example. Whatsmore, even with so much playing talent available, St George week in week out look dominant. There will always be a club / team dominant. Will Cronulla be Minor Premiers in 2011? 2012?

Many people in Aus, most notably Gus Gould are against the Salary Cap (which at least is being increased there) because countless star players have been taken from the NRL and the likes of Gould argue has made the competition weaker.

You cannot compare the NRL with SL One has an abundance of playing talent. The other has an acute shortage of playing talent

It was recently reported that even a good majority of Australian players believe in the salary cap despite it being detrimental to their own personal fortunes.

Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?

[Maximus Decimus]

Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?

It would probably be like it was before. The top teams would be slightly better and much better than the lower placed teams who would inevitably be worse.

At least in theory the salary cap produces closer games meaning that players get regularly exposed to games of higher intensity. In the past we had massive score lines and the big teams only playing a few intense games a year.

[dallymessenger]

Different competitions in different cultures with vastly different histories.

Being a graduate of "The Parksider RL academy" and a good student to boot I am sure I don't need to tell you, but for the reference of others, prior to the salary cap in the UK only Wigan had won the title in 3 or more consecutive seasons, of the heartland clubs currently in Super League, only Castleford don't have a title to there name. So we do have a history of the pots being shared about somewhat.

You could argue and many have on here that Wigans dominance of the late 80's/early to mid 90's was an anomaly due to the mix of part and full time teams and even then some of those seasons ended up with point ties and titles decided on points difference.

So from a level competition point of view, in the UK the salary cap is a fail, there is a good argument that it actually pulls the draw bridge up and stops the smaller clubs ever breaking the mold.

that whole different cultures things is BS.

the RFL moved away from P&R to franchising - last time i checked franchising wasnt a cultural thing in england

without a salary cap you saw the 2 richest english RL clubs spending what they wanted to on players

leeds had to sell headingly and wigan lost central park to became co tennants at the jjb.

clubs need to be saved from thelmselves

[dallymessenger]

Dally how has the salary cap worked wonders in Aus? Remember Aus is the perfect place to have a cap with so much playing talent available. Maybe an abundance of playing talent is the key to a more equal competition NOT a salary cap?

NRL clubs still have financial woes. Cronulla being the obvious example. Whatsmore, even with so much playing talent available, St George week in week out look dominant. There will always be a club / team dominant. Will Cronulla be Minor Premiers in 2011? 2012?

Many people in Aus, most notably Gus Gould are against the Salary Cap (which at least is being increased there) because countless star players have been taken from the NRL and the likes of Gould argue has made the competition weaker.

You cannot compare the NRL with SL One has an abundance of playing talent. The other has an acute shortage of playing talent

gould is an easts man. easts have a rich owner and a rich leagues club and no juniors and he just wants to be able to spend what he can on players

cronulla finished in the top 4 only a few seasons back

saints havent actually won a comp since 1979 either!

weve lost loads of good players to super league, union everywhere and now even AFL.

we still keep growing

[dallymessenger]

Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?

the richest 4 clubs would have all the best players so their playing standards would be better

for every other team they would be far worse.

[dallymessenger]

It was recently reported that even a good majority of Australian players believe in the salary cap despite it being detrimental to their own personal fortunes.

Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?

yep a players poll in an aussie rugby league mag did confirm that

[shrek]

that whole different cultures things is BS.

the RFL moved away from P&R to franchising - last time i checked franchising wasnt a cultural thing in england

without a salary cap you saw the 2 richest english RL clubs spending what they wanted to on players

leeds had to sell headingly and wigan lost central park to became co tennants at the jjb.

clubs need to be saved from thelmselves

Leeds proved that money spent doesn't equal success.

May be clubs do, may fans don't mind, would Portsmouth fans swap there FA Cup final win for the financial stability of a decade or more in the lower mid table of the Premiership? The ones I know wouldn't, they are reveling in the roller coaster ride of it all, sports fans, we're all different.

Forgive me if I am wrong, is I understand your position, and can see why as an Australian you'd be in favour of the cap, significant parts of RL top flight history in your country has been dominated by one or two clubs, I am thinking of South Sydney and St George in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. We have never had that in this country, with the exception of Wigan in the late 80's early 90's which many will argue was down to the part time/full time split as much as anything.

Your point on licensing being cultural is a good one, whilst I am happy to give it ago and see where it takes us its hardly been embraced by the RL community at large, as a regular visitor to these boards it can't have escaped your attention it can be a bone of contention with many!

[shrek]

Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?

Thats an interesting question, yes I do, personally.

The rules around football finances change around 2012, there are some interesting articles knocking about, there is an interested one in this months When Saturday Comes pointing out that the changes whilst limiting spending, will in effect prevent any lower clubs breaking the cartel that exists at the top of the table. There are holes in the argument, but it makes for an interesting read.

[Maximus Decimus]

Thats an interesting question, yes I do, personally.

The rules around football finances change around 2012, there are some interesting articles knocking about, there is an interested one in this months When Saturday Comes pointing out that the changes whilst limiting spending, will in effect prevent any lower clubs breaking the cartel that exists at the top of the table. There are holes in the argument, but it makes for an interesting read.

How would they manage it though? I can see how the prestige of Man United would help them to attract players but Chelsea? In theory they wouldn't be able to pay any more on wages or fees than say Newcastle United.

[shrek]

How would they manage it though? I can see how the prestige of Man United would help them to attract players but Chelsea? In theory they wouldn't be able to pay any more on wages or fees than say Newcastle United.

It depends on how it was implemented and what the rules were, first thing that comes to mind is I bet Newcastle end up paying a premium to attract decent foreign talent who'd prefer to live in London, no disrespect mean't to Newcastle!

I guess players also want success, given the choice if Wigan and Chelsea came knocking at your door as a professional footballer both offering the same amount of cash I would imagine the vast majority would choose Chelsea making the cycle hard to break on cash grounds alone.

[The Parksider]

Being a graduate of "The Parksider RL academy" and a good student to boot I am sure I don't need to tell you, but for the reference of others, prior to the salary cap in the UK only Wigan had won the title in 3 or more consecutive seasons, of the heartland clubs currently in Super League, only Castleford don't have a title to there name. So we do have a history of the pots being shared about somewhat.

Sure we have a history of the pots being shared about. The history up to Superleague is around 100 years of clubs tilting to be champions or cup winners.Superleague is erm 14 years on so maybe we should re-check matters in 86 years to compare like with like.

However if you look at the various successes by smaller clubs from years ago often they won because they got together a great local team. In 1931 nearly all Widnes's cup winning team were from Widnes and nearly all Hunslets cup and championship team were from Hunslet. That went on to Fev and Cas teams in the 80's...

Part of the Superleague deal is that clubs reduce the dependance on buying in players and actually develop their own. If that happens and the signs are that it is, then teams will come strong whenever they have a period when they unearth some pretty good juniors. Under an even cap they will be able to keep them IF they can afford the cap and maybe have a good run in the league.

Leeds had a good SL run after unearthing a good crop of juniors all at once, and of course Saints do well with young players - funny how these are the clubs people are moaning about. Sure players like Ellis and Wilkin were taken from the "Calder" area but of course the Calder area has no Superleague club that is well set up and can easily manage full salary cap. Those clubs who have been also rans in SL have largely ignored the kids, and only when franchising came in were shocked into doing something.

So the cap system allied to the youth development system is a superb way of getting us back to the "good old days" people crave. It just needs more than Leeds and Saints to be developing good players and bringing them into their first team and protecting them by being able to spend full cap. The signs are the Tomkins Bros may well help Wigan to a title, we shall see over the next 10 days.

I don't know where the large junior set ups in London and Wales will end up, but it may be if they have a local SL club spending full cap to go to we will see a couple of good expansion teams on the back of those kids. If SL remains uneven in the ability to pay full cap in wages we may not but that's not the caps fault.

Northern Sol mocked the idea Quins juniors may one day see them compete. I wonder how the Lancashire clubs will all manage in the coming years getting a share of quality kids when five clubs are all in the one area, but if your an old traditionalist I suppose it will be because great RL players only come from up t'north.

So on your history and statistics examinations you fail and are not allowed into my academy. You can however join Northern Sols reformatory for boys........

[shrek]

So now by using our history to make a point that I understand why an Aussie would embrace the cap given the large periods of domination over there by one or two clubs in contrast to how our game has evolved you resort to the flat cap argument?

I shall duck out of this thread, with one final, non-relevant point to the overall debate as we've reached the point we are repeating the same old same old in another rambling monologues to each other.

The 3 years I spent at South London, followed by the 2 years spent at St Albans, combined with 5 years of watching Quins/Skolars were amongst the happiest times I've had involved in rugby so there are some out there who will embrace and support expansion whilst also managing to disagree with your good self your cheap shots do your arguments a disservice.

[The Parksider]

So now by using our history to make a point that I understand why an Aussie would embrace the cap given the large periods of domination over there by one or two clubs in contrast to how our game has evolved you resort to the flat cap argument?

Seems you want to have a go about my "academy" but don't like the "reformatory". I mean no offence but if people want to be sarcastic, I don't mind standing my corner. I'm sure if we (all) met face to face we'd be a bit less inclined to "have a go" at ach other. I'll apologise first - sorry if you have taken offence.

I appreciated your points on policing the cap, and also your point about something far more above board and transparent like a draft, I'd go for that for sure....

[The Parksider]

Simply question?

If we had no salary cap in SL would playing standards become better or worse?

Even the playing abilities of the players out across the clubs and you have even competition in each game.

That makes for entertaining Rugby League. The "matches" will all be a higher spectator standard.

Put all the very best players into two teams and you have two league games to die for.

The other 12 will be a lower standard. Every time the top two play a lower club and blow them away it will not be entertaining.

Put all the best players in 7 teams and the worst in 7 teams and half the matches will be of a higher standard half the time and a lower standard the other half of the time. Maybe that is where we are now??

You can switch players all over the clubs but you won't change those players. Except it is said that Australian players hone their skills in intensive even games. It is said that you gain nothing playing a team of a lower standard e.g. England's matches against France.

But the bottom line of "standards" must be to try to improve both the quality of the matches and the quality of the players.

The cap makes the matches as even as possible.

The franchise system makes clubs try to find more kids to play the game

The SKY money allows the pro clubs to employ Aussie coaches who have an effect on standards

Then the argument becomes that the Aussies are still better than us. But the answer is that the rules to force clubs to develop junior RL only came in recently. The first 10 years of SL was completely wasted when it came to raising standards.....

[getdownmonkeyman]

Would a capless SL / RL be better or worse? No cap would mean the BEST players could be signed from the NRL, from Union and standards of play would rise. Even the 'lesser' clubs could sign a Wally Lewis and have 15 minutes of glory. Maybe more fans would be attracted to the game. If clubs suffer financial difficulties then what's new. Better a SL with great players and rising standards.

You will have to expand on this paragraph. How would SL be able to attract players from a competition that has far greater wealth, as a collective sport as well as individuals involved.

If it came to a peeing up the wall competition between SL, NRL and RU Sl's level would be by far the lowest.