WCS latest Solly to the rescue.

[Mumby Magic]

How about reducing the amount of Overseas players in our game?

[The Parksider]

Or said that Bradford Bulls ought to be in the WCC because they used to be good.

 

Well it was Solly who helped sink them. 

 

And oddly enough it was Solly's league format that helped Wakefield get off the relegation hook.

 

Now your not a Wakey fan by any chance are you???.

 

Anyway Bradford won the WCC so yes I'd like to see them back at the top.

[The Parksider]

How about reducing the amount of Overseas players in our game?

 

Could you possibly look back at Sundays game and hazard a guess as to what the result may have been had Galloway, Garbutt, Delaney and Cuthbertson not been in Leeds pack?

[JoneslessBishop]

The 2 games over here, 2 games over there was mooted prior to the games kicking off over the weekend, so it's not a consequence of the results.

I think it's a great idea, broadens the appeal, and makes being one of the top 2 teams even more attractive (i.e. Don't have to travel)

Yet again, just because a concept doesn't appeal in every way, are we guilty of threatening to bin it?

We have to perservere with concepts. Saints, Wigan and Leeds have young squads who will hopefully have benefitted from this weekend.

The RFL are frequently taken to task by the clubs and I think on this occasion they have the right to confidentially ask more of the big teams. They have delivered a record TV deal, sponsorship deals and a marquee signing rule. The big clubs should have better quality and bigger squads. Hopefully with a few more players they can be more competive.

At the end of the day though, all this soul searching after being beaten by 3 great NRL teams smacks of wanting to put the boot in.

We know the gap with the NRL is wide.

At interntional level we are competing well and have invested in Wayne Bennett to ensure we do more so. I can cope with slow progress in the WCS, which has good commercial and profile benefits

[The Parksider]

That is exactly how I see it, too.

 

There simply is not enough money in the game to facilitate all the SL clubs (I stress ALL) having a much higher salary cap.  A handful of clubs with wealthy owners, and I suspect Leeds if that normally-prudent club elected to join in, might go for it, if they thought thereby they could gain a competitive advantage over other clubs.  But how many?

 

Increase the salary cap to say £3m (which is where I suspect it really needs to be, minimum) and you'll get a an oligarchy of clubs dominating SL, with the rest abandoning any pretense of competing - they'll have been priced out of the elite competition. 

 

Again I think that Wakefield, HKR and Widnes have already pretty much given up any pretence of competing. ( no I don't "hate" your club)

 

For quite a number of clubs it would seem that their main ambition is to just stay in Superleague.

 

Whilst I have always argued hard for an "even competition" on principle, I'm coming to realise that the salary cap does not provide this because the top clubs can lure the best juniors and pay for the best set ups despite the cap.

 

The move to marquee player allowance, the failure to reign in Koukash whilst ignoring Green's protestations, and now the vow to review the cap itself all seemingly points to one thing and that is inviting chairmen with money to spend to go and spend it. 

[The Parksider]

The 2 games over here, 2 games over there was mooted prior to the games kicking off over the weekend, so it's not a consequence of the results.I think it's a great idea, broadens the appeal, and makes being one of the top 2 teams even more attractive (i.e. Don't have to travel) Yet again, just because a concept doesn't appeal in every way, are we guilty of threatening to bin it?

The RFL are frequently taken to task by the clubs and I think on this occasion they have the right to confidentially ask more of the big teams. They have delivered a record TV deal, sponsorship deals and a marquee signing rule. The big clubs should have better quality and bigger squads. Hopefully with a few more players they can be more competive.

At the end of the day though, all this soul searching after being beaten by 3 great NRL teams smacks of wanting to put the boot in.

We know the gap with the NRL is wide.

At interntional level we are competing well and have invested in Wayne Bennett to ensure we do more so. I can cope with slow progress in the WCS, which has good commercial and profile benefits

 

oooofff very well put indeed sir.

 

Another post that points to the big clubs maybe being allowed to really go for it? 

[redjonn]

I think the salary cap should be increased as currently its so low as to suit the lowest denominator. It also one way of ensuring some clubs don't need to look to improve income stream - a sort of complacency.

 

Our stronger financial clubs are limited and given the work they do and have done to improve their financial sustainability it seems odd to me that we then limited their capacity to attract and keep our top talent and gain the benefit for their hard work in improving income streams v the less capable clubs. . Especially as they are more likely to have been the clubs whom developed the player they subsequent lose to NRL or RU.   We want clubs to develop players and have strong academies and then ensure those that invest the most get limited benefit and others make little effort in comparison.

 

It also seems to me that given the short careers, hard work and sacrifice to be a professional player it is ridiculous the amount of monies an average player can earn.  Gosh it was a real eye opener when the Leeds coach in his press conference let slip that his two young half backs in the WCC are on a combined salary... that is combined salary of £32000.

 

I can see benefit of limiting number of oversea's players - but maybe on a sliding scale over a number of years.  In addition rewarding clubs who use home grown talent by only having a percentage of the salary against the salary cap which I think happens now.  

 

Have academies that are run centrally or via RFL for clubs that are unable to afford them currently. They have a sort of draft system whereas clubs like Leeds, Wigan. Saints with strong investment in Academies have no options to centrally or shared academies.  Obviously need some rules in place to prevent poaching of youngsters from outside defined geographical area's so clubs have a bigger incentive to increase participation and develop the community game.

[steef]

Genuine question. Would allowing investors to invest freely encourage more investors into the game? Does a relatively small cap put money men off as they can't see how their investment can gain a side an advantage?

[The Parksider]

I think the salary cap should be increased as currently its so low as to suit the lowest denominator. 

 

Our stronger financial clubs are limited and given the work they do and have done to improve their financial sustainability it seems odd to me that we then limited their capacity to attract and keep our top talent and gain the benefit for their hard work in improving income streams v the less capable clubs. . Especially as they are more likely to have been the clubs whom developed the player they subsequent lose to NRL or RU.  

 

We want clubs to develop players and have strong academies and then ensure those that invest the most get limited benefit and others make little effort in comparison.

 

Another on board for a scrap the cap campaign??

 

If the cap suited the lowest common denominator then it would be down at Widnes's level.

[redjonn]

Mind you we could go with the NZ approach.... focus on talent going to NRL to ensure a competitive international team and have an equivalent weak domestic league.    It means we don't need to worry so much about monies and competitive level of SL...

 

No I don't mean it but I am concerned that long term thats how it happens if we are constantly looking to lowest denominator and pulling the stronger clubs down. Despite the hard work they have put in to growing income streams.  

 

Leeds have been mentioned but they have massively grown the income stream, especially commercial income over the last 20 years.  Whilst they may have some advantages in being in a relatively thriving City it hasn't just happened by luck and no thought or effort.

[redjonn]

Another on board for a scrap the cap campaign??

 

If the cap suited the lowest common denominator then it would be down at Widnes's level.

 

 

Increase the Cap is my preferred option.

[GaryO]

I simply dont understand how raising the cap would be a solution to these results. in fact it will have little bearing on the gulf between the NRL and has the potential to widen the international gap and jeapodise the Superleague comp (which I feel shows promise of been in the early stages of its most exciting and competative season yet).

Lets face it, despite the differance in cap we still have very few English players leaving superleague for the NRL (Graham, Burgess brothers, Joe Burgess, Mike Cooper and Greg Eden been the extent by my reckoning).

This list is dwarfed by the amount of NRL (or feeder team) players heading over here to play SL. In my opinion you can loosely group the imports into the following scenarios in terms of the journey to SL:

1

Players who never really made NRL regular status or couldnt sustain it (IE Justin Carney, Atela Vea, Masalla, Tumavavie).

2

NRL journeymen who made NRL sides regurlarly for a prolonged period without every really standing out (IE Grant Millington, Joel Moon, Travis Burns, Cuthbertson).

3

Standouts at the back end of their carear or following a carear stunting injury (IE Pritchard, Tonga, Richards, Asotasi)

4

Top players who move over here following an incident whilst still in their prime! (Carney, Monaghan)

We find players from either group may prosper some may also flop. So what will will raising the cap acheive? I doubt it will bring in top NRL players at their peak (has the marque rule?) - so the NRL will still retain its upper quartile players. It will simply mean we will see more of the 1st 3 groups appearing in SL squads and exisitng top SL players have a wage increase due to competition to sign them.

If we pay all the Leeds players 10% more and replacwe Ash Handley with Justin Carney and Lilley with Travis Burns would Leeds have won on Sunday?

Course not, they may have lost by a score less but thats about it. Handley and Lilley, may however, have missed out on the 1st team opportunities and the chance to develop last and this season have offered them, on the plus side though Leeds may find it easier to beat Catalan at the weekend and will certainly beat the poorer clubs by more (excluding freak results).

Is any of this good for development of the English/international game?

Wigan may have also used the money to hold onto Joe Burgess.

Is that what the development of the English/international needs?

Ultimately, what will an increased cap mean? An inflation of exisiting SL players wage by say 10%? Maybe each SL team bringing in an extra 2 players from groups 1-3 and half of the teams prevent an English player moving to the NRL.

....and the richer, better coached and resouced NRL teams will still beat our battle hardened teams next year in their 1st pre-season friendly...But at least we will have a disjointed superleague and a couple of international hammerings to look forward to.

Simply well put, coherent and straight to the point, it will increase wages for the present players in SL, and a few bob leftover for Johnny-nearly made it but not quite in the NRL-Import, and as Parky says these guys from overseas are what all our SL clubs need to compete, sod perseverance with our home grown, go for the quick fix.

[The Parksider]

Genuine question. Would allowing investors to invest freely encourage more investors into the game? Does a relatively small cap put money men off as they can't see how their investment can gain a side an advantage?

 

This is the Marwan Koukash argument.

 

He was invited to purchase Salford, then told that he can't spend more than £1.6M on salaries or whatever the cap was at the time.

 

The result was Salford survived, but were a very poor side, leaving the rich benefactor who did so much for Mr. Wood, Rimmer and Solly questioning why they were doing this to him, and threatening to pack it in on several occasions, but also promising to spend what he wants and stuff the comsequences.

 

Now he's a lot happier for some strange reason

 

But Mr. Green at Bradford is livid that Mr. Koukash has ignored the cap in the most blatant way possible and paid large sums of money out against the rules. Rules which the RFL now seem to ignore.

 

The "cartel" argument is fascinating because there are seemingly several clubs with very rich owners whose owners have got them to the top and regularly get them in the finals, who don't support the cap being raised.

 

They don't need it raised. 

 

But what we do not know is whether any more Marwan Koukashes are out there, and there is only one way to find out and that is to scrap the cap.

 

I don't see how that can be done because AFAIK the clubs have to vote for it scrapping and out of the 12 clubs i think it is in the vested interest of most to leave it in place.

[JoneslessBishop]

No Parky I don't say just go for it. Like I said I am happier to see that national team progress more as that matters more than WCS, but this should still be retained, but marquee player should be better utilised and RFL should privately pressure clubs to do so. I don't think increasing the salary cap is the answer. I would prefer to see a competitive super league than an imbalanced one just so we can compete with the Aussies 1 weekend a year.

But I do think the marquee player should be better used. Benji Marshall paying at stand-off for Saints instead John Wilkin, Gareth Widdop at Leeds instead of Jordan Lilley. Wouldn't have meant we beat them probably but probably would have been closer. And would make for a great SL competition. There will always be big teams and smaller teams in pro sport with different objectives.

[The Parksider]

No Parky I don't say just go for it. Like I said I am happier to see that national team progress more as that matters more than WCS, but this should still be retained, but marquee player should be better utilised and RFL should privately pressure clubs to do so. I don't think increasing the salary cap is the answer. I would prefer to see a competitive super league than an imbalanced one just so we can compete with the Aussies 1 weekend a year.

But I do think the marquee player should be better used. Benji Marshall paying at stand-off for Saints instead John Wilkin, Gareth Widdop at Leeds instead of Jordan Lilley. Wouldn't have meant we beat them probably but probably would have been closer. And would make for a great SL competition. There will always be big teams and smaller teams in pro sport with different objectives.

 

Fair enough it's a good point, and given that nobody seems to want to use the marquee system may be an indicator that nobody wants to spend loads more on salaries.

 

It's just that Solly himself says they are looking at the salary cap in a way that indicated he wants several top clubs to spend more to be more competitive with the Australians. i.e. salary cap would be part of the analysis of the WCS now it's done with for 2016.

 

I don't have the archives on this matter but can anyone remember any meeting as regards the cap that went to any vote, or had any chairmen commenting on the matter?? 

[deluded pom?]

For all the arguments about our clubs losing players to the NRL and RU, due to a low SC, just how many players has our most successful side of recent times lost to those two entities?

[Cowardly Fan]

True, but you might have expected them to pick up some of those from other sides if the NRL and RU wasn't an attraction.  

 

Burgess x 4, Graham, Hodgson, Chris Ashton, Eastmond and Cooper.  It's not a flood, but adding 2 or 3 each of those into the 3 squads would have improved them.  That's not considering the International players that could have been retained, rather than returning to the NRL or who they might be able to attract with a higher cap. 

[Bearman]

The salary cap increase may be a valid argument but realistically how many clubs could afford to pay more?

The argument for a lower salary cap was that that was the way to increase the standard was by creating was a level playing field so that the intensity in games was raised.

We then tried to do away with P&R, that was to allow clubs not to go for a short term fix in order to remain at the top table.

None of these worked arguably because we want results NOW and are not prepared to wait.

Another panacea trotted out is that our players play to many games, so we should follow the Ausie model on that too. Good luck persuading the club chairmen that that is a good idea.

Lindsay came out with a radical plan that was shot down in flames by conservative forces. It may have been wrong, we'll never know.

[Dave T]

What's not to like? A strong and interesting defence of the WCS.

Interesting point as regards hitching up to the NRL we can see that with how the clubs recruit their spare players, this WCS series adds to that and as I said...

The bottom line is not the scores but the money and Solly has done well with Dacia's sponsorship and crowds still holding up

So one can't criticise this weekend, nor did I do so.....

But even you Kris have conceded the point that "It (only) matters if we keep losing year on year, and the profile drops.

We've lost six out of six, five by heavy scores and crowds are down across the series.

I don't disagree with you at all, I just point out to you that what you yourself fear for the future in an otherwise positive post is happening now!

you say crowds ate down across the series twice.

Year 1 total crowd 50k

Year 2 total crowd 52k

The Leeds one was slightly disappointing for me, but the crowds were solid.

That said, we should be growing these to 60k plus.

[Mumby Magic]

This is short term, no need to panic! We have won games before you know!

 

Raising the cap may not necessarily mean raising the standards. It can mean that the same players get paid more. We have a smaller pool of players to pick from nationally. We don't have the same structures as the Aussies do and the structures we have are always changing, we don't allow for continuity. The only thing I would change from the format is have it as a triple header 60,000 + in a stadium.

[GeordieSaint]

Raising the cap may not necessarily mean raising the standards. It can mean that the same players get paid more.

Which will be the case. We simply can't compete financially so won't attract the best Southern Hemisphere stars and some of our talent will still want to test themselves in the NRL. The issues with our game in England are pretty apparent so the RFL and clubs need to do something about it.

[DoubleD]

you say crowds ate down across the series twice.

Year 1 total crowd 50k

Year 2 total crowd 52k

The Leeds one was slightly disappointing for me, but the crowds were solid.

That said, we should be growing these to 60k plus.

Why was the Leeds one disappointing?

[redjonn]

Leaving the cap so low as to get a level competition, that is to the weakest club in SL will certainly not contribute to raising standards on the playing field. Nor will it help encourage clubs to strengthen themselves but continue to sit on the back of those clubs that do.

 

Keeping a low salary cap so low so all clubs can match especially with the extra sky money to help level competition is two way.   It may help share the silverware around.   But surely that logically must mean that any of our strongest financial clubs due to limiting cap must mean they are as likely as any club to be relegated.  Maybe all of them.  Leveling the competition surely means that to.

 

Now, fine many will say as its how it should be.   But surely it's our strongest clubs that make the biggest contribution to our sport. At least the developing the talent pool.

 

It just seems perverse that some clubs strive to succeed at all levels, increase income streams resulting in increased focus and monies to help develop the sport, enhance the sporting brand as a whole helping the commercial and media revenues.  Yet for all that effort that they themselves do better than the other and by extension weaker clubs we penalize that ambition, drive and success.  At what point does that effort become meaningless.

 

It seems to me keeping the salary cap so low to suit the weakest eventually leads to a communist utopia of equality for all. Even though the bread basket gets smaller until insufficient for any and we fail collectively.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Not sure what thread to post this on, and been tied up so doubtless others have made these points more eloquently (or already shot them down in flames):

- we need to persevere with the competition. We need to keep the NRL benchmark;

- why play any games in Oz? We need all the advantages we can get, and don't need routs a long way from home. Burgess and Graham do enough good for our game, without reinforcing any Oz views that SoO is the only way to go;

- we need more juniors playing;

- we need better coaches. Interestingly, 2 of our best spent time away from our comp, seemingly to their betterment. Maybe McNamara would be a much better coach on his return? Someone like Wane simply cannot learn enough in his current environment. If not head coaches, get assistants with NRL experience. We need to know what constitutes best practice;

- increase the cap, give exemptions for players crossing codes, anything to bring in and retain talent. As a short and medium term sticking plaster while focussing on more players being better coached. If I had to choose, I would much prefer the first 2 over this. I suspect the exchange rate will move considerably in our favour before too long, which will have a positive effect;

- meanwhile, our internationals team's prospects remain very rosy. We have traded up from the Roosters' assistant to a legendary coach, whose brilliance was shown at the DW; and

- keep the faith. We might not be good at it, but we have the greatest game.

- be inspired, not cowed, by seeing the heights our game can reach;

[deluded pom?]

Leaving the cap so low as to get a level competition, that is to the weakest club in SL will certainly not contribute to raising standards on the playing field. Nor will it help encourage clubs to strengthen themselves but continue to sit on the back of those clubs that do.

 

Keeping a low salary cap so low so all clubs can match especially with the extra sky money to help level competition is two way.   It may help share the silverware around.   But surely that logically must mean that any of our strongest financial clubs due to limiting cap must mean they are as likely as any club to be relegated.  Maybe all of them.  Leveling the competition surely means that to.

 

Now, fine many will say as its how it should be.   But surely it's our strongest clubs that make the biggest contribution to our sport. At least the developing the talent pool.

 

It just seems perverse that some clubs strive to succeed at all levels, increase income streams resulting in increased focus and monies to help develop the sport, enhance the sporting brand as a whole helping the commercial and media revenues.  Yet for all that effort that they themselves do better than the other and by extension weaker clubs we penalize that ambition, drive and success.  At what point does that effort become meaningless.

 

It seems to me keeping the salary cap so low to suit the weakest eventually leads to a communist utopia of equality for all. Even though the bread basket gets smaller until insufficient for any and we fail collectively.

The silverware hasn't been shared around so the SC hasn't worked in that respect regardless of the limit. Only four clubs have ever won a GF and one of those is now in the Championship. This leaves Wigan, Leeds and Saints as our 'flagship' clubs. Are you suggesting we simply allow theses three clubs to spend whatever they want to on player contracts and the rest can sit back and watch them win every trophy ad infinitum? We've been there before in the mid '80s to the early '90s only it was a virtual one club monopoly. That same club had to sell their spiritual home when the going got tough. Still let's allow clubs to bankrupt themselves in a vain attempt to compete with a league we have a hope in hell of emulating. The simple fact is we don't have enough clubs capable of spending the type of money you are hinting at. We have to cut our cloth accordingly or do we simply cull clubs who can't cut it until we end up with a three team division?