WCS latest Solly to the rescue.

[DoubleD]

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?

 

It's always a balancing act but i think the cap is too low as things stand. I don't think players get paid enough for the job they do, although some would say people would love to play professional sport for a living, it is only a short career. As you pointed out, the SC hasn't meant other clubs have won the comp, and i actually think it hinders owners who want to come in (like Koukash) and spend to make their side competitive. A cap is important but not at the lowest denomination. Other clubs should be upping their game to reach that, the weakest will fail but others will rise. I'd hope to see the likes of Toulose, Newcastle and Sheffield challenging for a place in SL in years to come

[Dave T]

Why was the Leeds one disappointing?

because it was Leeds' lowest ever for this game, from a peak almost double the other night.

[mrbenarthur]

Two things;

1) Raise the cap.

2) Have a reserve grade that all clubs should participate in.

[DoubleD]

because it was Leeds' lowest ever for this game, from a peak almost double the other night.

 

But it was almost a sell out, they can't get anymore in unless they played at another ground? Elland Road is a dump and they make far more money at Headingley, especially at the prices they charged so there wasn't really any incentive. Particularly as it is the SL clubs underwriting the financial risk for the tournament. Now if the RFL underwrote it, then there would be more chance of them taking it to a bigger stage but i'd rather not Elland Road because if you're over 5ft 9, the experience of watching sport there is similar to having your spleen removed

 

The only reason it was a few hundred short of a sell out was because the remaining were in the uncovered Western terrace and the forecast was grim so put people off.

[Allora]

I think if the Main game was held in Sydney and the other game was the Bronco's in Brisbane you would get at least 60,000 fans between them.

[redjonn]

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?

 

I believe the salary cap should be raised for some of the reasons given.  Maybe reducing the SL number of teams so each gets more from the Sky money or any central funding.  Say 10 clubs.    Then looking at introducing some counter balancing to help weaker clubs - say stronger business and marketing support plus enhanced performance and specialist coaching support that the weaker clubs are unable to provide as well.   Any number of things and the one's suggested may not be the best but something that helps those clubs grow commercial and performance capability wise until a certain level is achieved.

 

We could of course keep the salary cap so low for longer and longer that eventually the "leveling of team" results in our "flagships" being relegated.  As that's the reverse logic of leveling to ensure silverware is shared.  Strategically a disaster as those stronger clubs diminish, resulting in less money in the sport anyway. Those clubs subsequently losing monies to invest in things that benefit the sport such as developing talent and academies. Less money coming in commercially to the sport and hence those other teams not able to sell playing against those clubs and thus weaker financials for them too. Ultimately diminishing the whole sport.  Never-the-less we have that communist utopia of equality. All-be-it a diminished cake.

 

It ain't easy but their has the be a balance between motivating clubs to strive to improve and bring in extra revenue streams whilst not totally reducing the league to 5 or 6. Raising the salary cap is part of it.  Otherwise just rely on salary cap reducing the clubs making the better efforts and hence leveling the competition so the weaker clubs don't need to strive.

[deluded pom?]

I believe the salary cap should be raised for some of the reasons given.  Maybe reducing the SL number of teams so each gets more from the Sky money or any central funding.  Say 10 clubs.    Then looking at introducing some counter balancing to help weaker clubs - say stronger business and marketing support plus enhanced performance and specialist coaching support that the weaker clubs are unable to provide as well.   Any number of things and the one's suggested may not be the best but something that helps those clubs grow commercial and performance capability wise until a certain level is achieved.

 

We could of course keep the salary cap so low for longer and longer that eventually the "leveling of team" results in our "flagships" being relegated.  As that's the reverse logic of leveling to ensure silverware is shared.  Strategically a disaster as those stronger clubs diminish, resulting in less money in the sport anyway. Those clubs subsequently losing monies to invest in things that benefit the sport such as developing talent and academies. Less money coming in commercially to the sport and hence those other teams not able to sell playing against those clubs and thus weaker financials for them too. Ultimately diminishing the whole sport.  Never-the-less we have that communist utopia of equality. All-be-it a diminished cake.

 

It ain't easy but their has the be a balance between motivating clubs to strive to improve and bring in extra revenue streams whilst not totally reducing the league to 5 or 6. Raising the salary cap is part of it.  Otherwise just rely on salary cap reducing the clubs making the better efforts and hence leveling the competition so the weaker clubs don't need to strive.

I understand where you are coming from jonn but the SC hasn't resulted in the silverware being shared around so logically those 'flagship' clubs wouldn't be relegated unless they had financial problems a la Bradford. As I said previously we as a sport simply don't have enough clubs capable of generating the kind of money that would allow them to reward the players for their efforts and still remain viable businesses. There are very few, if any, alternative teams we could currently swap with the sides already in SL except possibly Toulouse.

[Dave T]

But it was almost a sell out, they can't get anymore in unless they played at another ground? Elland Road is a dump and they make far more money at Headingley, especially at the prices they charged so there wasn't really any incentive. Particularly as it is the SL clubs underwriting the financial risk for the tournament. Now if the RFL underwrote it, then there would be more chance of them taking it to a bigger stage but i'd rather not Elland Road because if you're over 5ft 9, the experience of watching sport there is similar to having your spleen removed

The only reason it was a few hundred short of a sell out was because the remaining were in the uncovered Western terrace and the forecast was grim so put people off.

it should have been sold out in advance of accurate weather knowledge.

[redjonn]

I understand where you are coming from jonn but the SC hasn't resulted in the silverware being shared around so logically those 'flagship' clubs wouldn't be relegated unless they had financial problems a la Bradford. As I said previously we as a sport simply don't have enough clubs capable of generating the kind of money that would allow them to reward the players for their efforts and still remain viable businesses. There are very few, if any, alternative teams we could currently swap with the sides already in SL except possibly Toulouse.

 

Yep I see your point. It may be because it takes time to work through. Plus that the extra funding from Sky has only just been enjoyed resulting in more teams able to spend to the salary cap.  Although its early days I note the leveling of competition so far.  Whether as the season progresses and injuries and fatigue take their toll normal service resumes we will see.      The salary cap is such that outside the first 18 or so players it tends to get made up of academy or inexperienced players - not much money to pay them.   

 

I guess all I'm trying to do is show the logic.   If we are wanting to ensure level competition it surely means we have to cater for weakest members.  For some that means more sharing of silverware - a worthy cause for sure.  Never-the-less the logic must also apply in reverse.    Thus no matter how well a club is run and is successful in selling themselves it seems we want to then ensure they don't benefit from that effort. Putting them in the same jeopardy as a relatively ill-run club to demise - yet they are our flagship clubs that bring in the monies and raise the commercial attractiveness to all.

 

The logic to me means it isn't strategically sensible for the sport in the long term.  Never-the-less if priority is level competitiveness then an answer is to keep it as low as to suit weakest member but I want people to at least understand the other-side of the coin as that's the logic.

[DoubleD]

it should have been sold out in advance of accurate weather knowledge.

You couldn't get tickets for 3 weeks in January whilst they put a new ticketing system in place and besides I think people know what the weather will be like in February! Tickets were priced at a premium too. I hardly think a few hundred short of capacity in an open terrace given the above is cause for disappointment

[Dave T]

You couldn't get tickets for 3 weeks in January whilst they put a new ticketing system in place and besides I think people know what the weather will be like in February! Tickets were priced at a premium too. I hardly think a few hundred short of capacity in an open terrace given the above is cause for disappointment

but that the crowds have been higher in that stadium in Feb before is my point.

Irrespective of stadium choice etc. the fact Leeds have seen a decline in the crowds for these games is disappointing, even with the novelty value going.

Im not a fan of home venues being used tbh. We didnt used to, and had some decent crowds.

If we make these decisions due to moneybthen it is too small time, as we should get bigger benefits playing these games in front of 30k plus than 19k. If we cant make that work it sort of highlights where the game is going wrong.

[DoubleD]

but that the crowds have been higher in that stadium in Feb before is my point.

Irrespective of stadium choice etc. the fact Leeds have seen a decline in the crowds for these games is disappointing, even with the novelty value going.

Im not a fan of home venues being used tbh. We didnt used to, and had some decent crowds.

If we make these decisions due to moneybthen it is too small time, as we should get bigger benefits playing these games in front of 30k plus than 19k. If we cant make that work it sort of highlights where the game is going wrong.

Leeds capacity is 20k now due to reductions in South stand due to safety issues.

Ahh now you're going into a different area and I totally agree the sport does undersell itself and top clubs should do more. I long for the day when the WCS can attract neutral venues in future with places paying money to host the games and us generating global Tv rights off the back of it. It won't happen overnight and won't happen until we're more competitive but this is why we must stick at it.

If the series becomes 2 in each country, it would be great to have a double header in Wembley or Olympic Park

[The Future is League]

Instead of upping the SC, why not invest extra money into the grass roots. This where and realistically the best place to bring forward new talent which can be nurtured into top rugby league players.

 

Paying the Burgess brothers or whoever more money to play in England is a short term solution, if it is a solution. The RFL need to get back to basics and set out a clear plan for future talent to be brought through in suitable competitions.

 

The scrapping of reserve grades, under 16's, introduction of DR, etc. has been the downfall of the standard of rugby in this country, not the fact that someone can earn more money elsewhere (a factor in any sport/industry)

 

A major shake up is needed very quickly.

You've got it in one.

If the clubs have spare cash, spend it on junior development and see the investment pay dividends in the long term

[Gates1]

Interesting tweet from Marwan Koukash basically saying that although he would love to see an increase tv deal and sponsorship can't presently support an increase in cap.

Not something I would have anticipated from him.

[Adeybull]

Interesting tweet from Marwan Koukash basically saying that although he would love to see an increase tv deal and sponsorship can't presently support an increase in cap.

Not something I would have anticipated from him.

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the post I made earlier.  About the (inadequate) salary cap being but a symptom; the cause being far too little money in the game. Sounds like someone in a much better position to judge holds a similar view...?

[MaverickX111]

I agree about increasing the SC but they need to be sensible about it given half the clubs can barely cope with the current level.

I'd like to see it go up to £2M for 2017 and then by another £100K each year for the following 5 years, so by 2022 we will have a cap of £2.5M This then gives the clubs time to work on improving their income streams so all the clubs can remain relatively competitive.

In addition to the cap increase I'd also like to see a 'home grown player' dispensation introduced. Any player who has come through a clubs junior set-up and is classed as home grown will get say a 20% dispensation so only 80% of their salary counts towards the total cap spend. This extra incentive still pushes clubs to continue investing in their youth while also allowing them to effectively spend above the total cap. It should also hopefully encourage more players to stay within our game and not go to the NRL because they can earn a decent salary here.

Great ideas

Like em

[Adelaide Tiger]

Increasing the cap will not magically make any player any better.

We missed the boat when SL arrived. Instead of ring fencing a certain amount to be spent on the grass roots all the Chairmen saw £ signs and grabbed the cash. Short termism as usual to cover the inadequacies of club administrators.

If the game had ring fenced £1 million per season for grass roots/ junior development and seeked match funding the quality and quantity of players should have increased.

So IMHO any increase in funding/sponsorship etc. should be ring fenced and any chairman holding their hand out for more should be slapped.

I would only support clubs spending over the cap IF a club clearly demonstrates that they already have X amount in the bank at least 12 months prior to a new season which then gives them the chance to target a specific player(s).

[The Future is League]

Interesting tweet from Marwan Koukash basically saying that although he would love to see an increase tv deal and sponsorship can't presently support an increase in cap.

Not something I would have anticipated from him.

He's not wrong though.

In my opinion its far more cost effective to spend money on junior development than some has been or never was from the NRL.

Short term gain long term pain.

Short term pain long term gain.

British Rugby League needs to plan for the long term with junior development.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Posting this from Australia. Two points not mentioned on this thread.

 

Firstly, Who would join an inferior league even for higher wages. RLW describes the Aussie imports to superleague as in the "solid but not spectacular" category. So either those who cannot get a game in the NRL:or those at the fag end of their career. 

 

Secondly, Importing yet more of the above is not exactly helping the game in the Northern Hemisphere long term is it.

 

I arrived to grumblings about the pre-season workload, understrength teams in the Auckland 9's and Indigenous games and the devaluing of the Charity Shield. Given the problems with travelling across the globe pre-season for a trial game which is what thev World Club challenge is unless the NRL Clubs get a conmsiderable fixed fee from the RFL I cannot see the WCC continuing in its current format.

[The Parksider]

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.

 

Really Dave?

 

Wigan last year  20,842   this year 19,103

Saints last year  17,980    this year 14,008

 

Those are the like for like comparisons causing concern.

[The Parksider]

Elland Road is a dump and they make far more money at Headingley,

 

Dump or not Leeds put 37,000 into Elland Road for a WCC game.

 

it should have been sold out in advance of accurate weather knowledge.

 

That's a much better point, there were 18,000 people who watched Leeds at Elland Road who didn't bother this time - why do we think this is????

 

I think if the Main game was held in Sydney and the other game was the Bronco's in Brisbane you would get at least 60,000 fans between them.

 

Someone said do not play these games in Australia or we will get slaughtered 

 

But the point is that this is all about money, and Solly wants those 30,000 crowds , if the Aussies will provide them then two games go there.

 

I wouldn't mind paying to watch Leeds murder the Cowboys if the boot was on the other foot??

 

As Solly says the "results do not matter".......

 

But maybe they do????

[Saint Toppy]

Taking games away from clubs own stadia has a financial cost to it. The SL clubs already have to put up the cash to participate (around £350K I think it was this year) so taking the game away from their own ground adds even more financial burden on them because they will have to rent another stadium, miss out on the match day sales of food & drink, all in the hope they can then attract enough extra fans to cover these extra costs.

[Dave T]

Really Dave?

Wigan last year 20,842 this year 19,103

Saints last year 17,980 this year 14,008

Those are the like for like comparisons causing concern.

The Saints one isnt, last year they played in the main game, this year it was the equivalent of the Wire game.

You did state the WCS crowds were down which just isnt a fact.

[Dave T]

Taking games away from clubs own stadia has a financial cost to it. The SL clubs already have to put up the cash to participate (around £350K I think it was this year) so taking the game away from their own ground adds even more financial burden on them because they will have to rent another stadium, miss out on the match day sales of food & drink, all in the hope they can then attract enough extra fans to cover these extra costs.

the risk is that we end up playing the challenge cup final at Odsal. England remain at Leigh, Wigan and Hull, and the Grand Final moves to Huddersfield.

We are either serious about these things or qe are happy to just carry on with rl stuck in our current towns.

[Dave T]

Dump or not Leeds put 37,000 into Elland Road for a WCC game.

That's a much better point, there were 18,000 people who watched Leeds at Elland Road who didn't bother this time - why do we think this is????

Someone said do not play these games in Australia or we will get slaughtered

i genuinely believe premier grounds staging big events will draw bigger crowds. This is pretty much proven, with all our biggest WCC and international crowds of the last 20 years at non-rl grounds, plus Magic weekend.

The one time we did play in oz it got a very large crowd. Far bigger than anything this weekend.

On the results point, and this isnt aimed at you, but it is disappointing that history is being rewritten to suggest we have been battered in all 6 games so far.