New Salary Cap rules for 2017

[DoubleD]

jeez. Is this the latest mis-quote that will be repeated in every thread until eventually it becomes 'Pearson hates the structure and wants it changed at the end of next year'?

I think you're memory is failing you Dave. Do you not remember the press statement that Pearson made along with the 6 other rebel chairmen where they publicly stated that they did not want the structure and also wanted the BT sport proposal that was on the table?

I remember it very vividly, much like the dream where I won the euromillions

[LeeF]

You said "Championship clubs can already spend to SL levels subject to various criteria"

 

Could you set them out for us please?

That's not a misrepresentation but a reporting of a fact.

[The Parksider]

   Come on,Parksider.Get with the programme.

 

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/34925697

 

 

   At the behest of you know who..... http://www.eurosport.co.uk/rugby-league/leigh-set-to-move-for-rangi-chase-after-salary-cap-increase_sto5001789/story.shtml

 

I'm trying my best Mr. Cynic, it seems the usual keyboard warriors want to talk about me, as flattering as that may be we need to stick to the OP's point, this may also help:-

 

http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Championshipsalarycapregulations%202016_final%20PDF.pdf

[The Parksider]

   Come on,Parksider.Get with the programme.

 

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/34925697

 

 

   At the behest of you know who..... http://www.eurosport.co.uk/rugby-league/leigh-set-to-move-for-rangi-chase-after-salary-cap-increase_sto5001789/story.shtml

 

 

People can try this this next (Keyboard warriors as well if interested )

 

http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Superleaguefinancialsustainabilityregulations_final%20PDF.pdf

 

The dispensations that I think (corrections welcome) allow Derek Beaumont to top up leigh's spending are at 6b.

 

Hopefully by looking things up this has assisted the thread towards a conclusion.....

[The Parksider]

   Come on Parksider.

 

I'm coming - here's the answer on whether Derek is going for full cap again next year from Craiq:-

 

"Derek said he would recruit a SL squad for whatever division we are in to the full SL cap for 2017". 

 

Always helps to listen to what people have said, so he's off spending again. The OP though can rest easy the rules (corrections welcome) appear to say he can only do it with his money and not ruin the club.

 

Thread can be locked now.

[LeeF]

So Parky argues with himself and then tries to avoid admitting that everyone else was correct and he was wrong

[Angelic Cynic]

I'm trying my best Mr. Cynic, it seems the usual keyboard warriors want to talk about me, as flattering as that may be we need to stick to the OP's point, this may also help:-

 

http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Championshipsalarycapregulations%202016_final%20PDF.pdf

 

     It has certainly helped a Championship club yet the whole thing is aimed at Super League clubs without any mention of anyone else.

 

     It either indicates the RFL are not interested in Championship clubs,or deadly Derek has hijacked regulations which do not,or should not,concern him.

 

     A free-for-all for all clubs?  The RFL Disciplinary certainly treat Super League players completely differently from Championship players;as well as other inconsistencies.

[The Parksider]

     It has certainly helped a Championship club yet the whole thing is aimed at Super League clubs without any mention of anyone else.

 

     It either indicates the RFL are not interested in Championship clubs,or deadly Derek has hijacked regulations which do not,or should not,concern him.

 

     A free-for-all for all clubs?  The RFL Disciplinary certainly treat Super League players completely differently from Championship players;as well as other inconsistencies.

 

The RFL were "not interested" in CC clubs right from 1996 when plans for SL absorbed CC clubs into the top league through merger. Little was said about what went under that.

 

As we all know the game is all about the TV contract and the SL competition services that. The new structure is about entry to SL to freshen it up replace failing SL clubs etc

 

The answer is to become an SL club hence your lot chased the rich owner and professionalised, and had they hit form of recent seasons could have been chasing a place.

 

The TV contract is everything so cest la vie....

 

(BTW looking up Sheffields big attendances playing at the Soccer grounds the other day one has to re-think whether Sheffield would be that badly supported if they got back to SL)

[ELBOWSEYE]

Looks like the cap is standardised across all three divisions. £1.85 or 50% of turnover which ever is lowest.

[ParraEelsNRL]

If I'm reading it right that means the clubs with ambition can with a lot of hard work and luck, now have a crack at playing with the big boys or, can sit back and develop juniors and the club other ways if not interested in spending massive amounts of money chasing the SL dream?

 

If this is the case, what is not to like unless your club is completely dirt poor and the people running it or owning it are lazy?

[The Parksider]

If I'm reading it right that means the clubs with ambition can with a lot of hard work and luck, now have a crack at playing with the big boys or, can sit back and develop juniors and the club other ways if not interested in spending massive amounts of money chasing the SL dream?

 

If this is the case, what is not to like unless your club is completely dirt poor and the people running it or owning it are lazy?

 

http://www.totalrl.com/salary-cap-raised-across-board-next-year/

 

"RFL chief executive Nigel Wood has revealed that the salary cap of £1.85m will be applicable across ALL three top-level competitions next year.

Wood spoke at a media briefing on Wednesday and revealed that there will be no limit on what he described as “entrepreneurial owners” in the lower leagues from 2017.

“It will be one salary cap system for all the leagues,” he said.

“If you’ve got an entrepreneurial owner who wants to invest, there will be no restriction on that. Where there’s an owner who wants their club to ‘have a go’, then they can, although the ‘50% rule’ applies.

“There’s a finite cap of £1.85m or 50% of turnover – whichever is lower. The clubs are discussing all that and they will be looking forward at what the strategic tactics are to  improve the supply and quality of players".

 

You say clubs "can sit back and develop juniors" if not interested in spending massive amounts of money chasing the SL dream? Whhat is not to like unless your club is completely dirt poor and the people running it or owning it are lazy?"

 

 

You miss the serious UK player shortage, clubs cannot just develop juniors as for a number of them there's little junior ARL about even if they do this the rich clubs will just take them off them and they'll have lost money on them.

 

These salary cap changes seem to be entirely based on the Canadian club and Toulouse.

 

If we are running out of English players it looks like the hope is France and Canada will swell the player pool.

[Damien]

I don't think Nigel Wood could have said any worse that he has said about a number of things and it is hard to believe that the game can move forward under his 'leadership'. I just find his most of his answers baffling and contradicting and none more so than on the Salary Cap. He says this:

 

“If you’ve got an entrepreneurial owner who wants to invest, there will be no restriction on that. Where there’s an owner who wants their club to ‘have a go’, then they can, although the ‘50% rule’ applies."

 

Can Wood really not see the contradiction between this and having a ridiculously low Super League Salary Cap of £1.85 million or even a Salary Cap at all? If an entrepreneur such as Koukash wants to come in and pump money into Super League and spend £3 million to beat the status quo then he cant.

 

This is all obviously to suit Toulouse and Toronto and there is not a chance that any other team outside Super League can spend £1.85million, most cant even spend the current restrictions. This therefore then leads to another question, Did clubs outside Super League vote for this or was it just imposed? I  find it hard to believe that clubs would vote for this when most cannot afford it. If it wasn't voted for then it makes a mockery of the RFL's claims that the Super League salary cap cannot be increased because a majority of clubs do not want it or cant afford it.

 

I am certainly not against clubs being able to buy their way to the top and think that the current Super League cap level is far too low and is hindering the sport. As far as I can see have such a low Super League cap to suit the big clubs and Hetherington and co at the top. This means that the current status quo is maintained on the cheap. As far as I can recall every Super League team now has the full Salary Cap covered and from this season now gets an extra £500,000 a year. If top clubs getting 10,000+ fans every week are still pleading poverty and saying that the Salary Cap cant be increased then we may as well pack in now. This is especially so when Wood is now saying that clubs getting attendances in their 100s and no\little TV money can now spend the same. If Wood is aiming for a Batley or Swinton to spend £1.85 million then that is far less realistic than a Wigan or Leeds aiming for a salary cap of £3 million.

[Dave T]

Having an uneven cap in a league with promotion is less of an issue as a rich club should earn promotion and find tgeir level.

If you do exactly the same at the top level then you could end up with one team dominating year after year.

Increasing the cap at the lower divisions allows for expansion teams to progress.

Personally im comfortable with the approach and dont think its a farce at all.

As Wood points out, if SL clubs want a higher cap, they can have one.

[DoubleD]

I don't think Nigel Wood could have said any worse that he has said about a number of things and it is hard to believe that the game can move forward under his 'leadership'. I just find his most of his answers baffling and contradicting and none more so than on the Salary Cap. He says this:

“If you’ve got an entrepreneurial owner who wants to invest, there will be no restriction on that. Where there’s an owner who wants their club to ‘have a go’, then they can, although the ‘50% rule’ applies."

Can Wood really not see the contradiction between this and having a ridiculously low Super League Salary Cap of £1.85 million or even a Salary Cap at all? If an entrepreneur such as Koukash wants to come in and pump money into Super League and spend £3 million to beat the status quo then he cant.

This is all obviously to suit Toulouse and Toronto and there is not a chance that any other team outside Super League can spend £1.85million, most cant even spend the current restrictions. This therefore then leads to another question, Did clubs outside Super League vote for this or was it just imposed? I find it hard to believe that clubs would vote for this when most cannot afford it. If it wasn't voted for then it makes a mockery of the RFL's claims that the Super League salary cap cannot be increased because a majority of clubs do not want it or cant afford it.

I am certainly not against clubs being able to buy their way to the top and think that the current Super League cap level is far too low and is hindering the sport. As far as I can see have such a low Super League cap to suit the big clubs and Hetherington and co at the top. This means that the current status quo is maintained on the cheap. As far as I can recall every Super League team now has the full Salary Cap covered and from this season now gets an extra £500,000 a year. If top clubs getting 10,000+ fans every week are still pleading poverty and saying that the Salary Cap cant be increased then we may as well pack in now. This is especially so when Wood is now saying that clubs getting attendances in their 100s and no\little TV money can now spend the same. If Wood is aiming for a Batley or Swinton to spend £1.85 million then that is far less realistic than a Wigan or Leeds aiming for a salary cap of £3 million.

How does having such a low salary cap suit the big clubs and Hetherington and maintain the status quo? Leeds nearly finished bottom and they make a profit of £1 million so can easily outspend others if the cap was raised. The cap has made the smaller clubs compete but at SL level is too low as its restricted the better well run clubs and has seen standards decline.

The point of the new rules will allow bigger better run clubs who generate significant revenues to be able to spend more and I don't think there's anything wrong with that

[The Parksider]

I don't think Nigel Wood could have said any worse 

 

“If you’ve got an entrepreneurial owner who wants to invest, there will be no restriction on that. Where there’s an owner who wants their club to ‘have a go’, then they can, although the ‘50% rule’ applies."

 

Can Wood really not see the contradiction between this and having a ridiculously low Super League Salary Cap of £1.85 million

 

This is all obviously to suit Toulouse and Toronto and there is not a chance that any other team outside Super League can spend £1.85million. Did clubs outside Super League vote for this or was it just imposed?

 

It makes a mockery of the RFL's claims that the Super League salary cap cannot be increased because a majority of clubs do not want it or cant afford it.

 

. As far as I can see have such a low Super League cap to suit the big clubs and Hetherington and co at the top. If Wood is aiming for a Batley or Swinton to spend £1.85 million then that is far less realistic than a Wigan or Leeds aiming for a salary cap of £3 million.

 

It obviously is done to suit Toronto and Toulouse and yes it was imposed on the Championships, and no there was no vote. Why would the RFL allow the Championship clubs to veto the development of Superleague through the inclusion of  a second allegedly rich French club and a rich Canadian inclusion. The tail can't be allowed to wag the dog.

 

Unsure of your mockery comment unless it links to your opinion that if SL clubs have a vote CC clubs should have one too. Superleague clubs have a major say because the game relies entirerly on their competition and on the large private investments their chairmen have made and still do. They pay the money they get the vote.

 

As for what Wood says it could apply to Batley, some years ago the club fended off an approach by an allegedly multi-Millionaire who wanted to pump £Millions in to make them an SL club. Perhaps he'll bid again?

 

You say "the current Super League cap level is far too low and is hindering the sport. As far as I can see have such a low Super League cap to suit the big clubs"

 

It actually suits the small clubs to have a cap at £1,825M because if that went up a few Hundred thousand then they could no longer compete.

 

It also suits the top clubs because the game can only improve it's playing rosters if the cap went up to be competitive with RU & NRL just adding a few hundred thousand to it would see the bigger SL clubs take players off the smaller ones ruin the competitive balance of the league, and pay the same players more.

 

If Hetherington has made the club £1M this year then it's something towards a new south stand, Paying Kallum Watkins and Ryan Hall to be marquee players just won't be as good an investment    

[Damien]

How does having such a low salary cap suit the big clubs and Hetherington and maintain the status quo? Leeds nearly finished bottom and they make a profit of £1 million so can easily outspend others if the cap was raised. The cap has made the smaller clubs compete but at SL level is too low as its restricted the better well run clubs and has seen standards decline.

The point of the new rules will allow bigger better run clubs who generate significant revenues to be able to spend more and I don't think there's anything wrong with that

 

Quite simply it ensures Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Warrington stay at the top without ensuring they have to spend any extra. They have the best players, sign all of the best young players, are challenging for honours, have the history, have the support, have the infrastructure etc. The Salary Cap simply ensures they have a nice little clique at the top without really needing to spend anymore to compete with each other.

 

The ridiculously low salary cap, which has fallen drastically in real terms since its inception, ensures that no team will be able to compete with these clubs on a regular basis. There may not be stacks of people wanting to pump in money to Rugby League clubs but do you think Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Warrington really want a Koukash spending £2.5 million, pinching some of their players and forcing them to spend more to keep them at the top. If an entrepreneur, who Wood seems so keen on (outside SL anyway!), wants to compete with this how do they do it? In most other sports they flash the cash and pay overs for players and thus unsettle the status quo by building a better squad and potentially weakening them at the same time. Think Blackburn, Man City, Chelsea etc. They have to spend more to compete against the 'glamour' clubs. As Koukash and Salford have shown this cannot be done with such a low Salary Cap and you can only attract the next tier of player, the Hansen's, the Jones-Bishop's etc. These aren't really top players, just solid players who will leave a top club where they are getting average money to go to lower club to get big money. They also wont put bums on seats.

 

The trouble is it also suits the smaller clubs who can maintain the pretence of being a Super League club by making up the numbers and trundling along. As a result the salary cap will continue to remain stagnant or fall in real terms unless a change is imposed, Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

 

All I see is a stagnant Super League with worsening standards year on year, no star players and people losing interest and something needs to be done. A low Salary Cap in itself does not make things any more competitive, as there are a stack more things to take into account, and just drags clubs down to the lowest common denominator. If having a truly competitive league was all what mattered all teams would go back to part time but it isnt. Surely 'Super' League should be aspiring to be more than this?

[The Parksider]

Quite simply it ensures Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Warrington stay at the top without ensuring they have to spend any extra. They have the best players, sign all of the best young players, are challenging for honours, have the history, have the support, have the infrastructure etc. The Salary Cap simply ensures they have a nice little clique at the top without really needing to spend anymore to compete with each other.

 

The ridiculously low salary cap, which has fallen drastically in real terms since its inception, ensures that no team will be able to compete with these clubs on a regular basis. There may not be stacks of people wanting to pump in money to Rugby League clubs but do you think Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Warrington really want a Koukash spending £2.5 million, pinching some of their players and forcing them to spend more to keep them at the top. If an entrepreneur, who Wood seems so keen on (outside SL anyway!), wants to compete with this how do they do it? 

 

They do it like you say Damian,

 

Koukash pays treble wages to the best Great Britain and overseas players and put's  them in Salford jerseys, and they play under the worlds best coaches.

 

Then he works towards winning everything every year. We've been there and done that and it ends up with Salford selling out the AJ Bell and the rest of the clubs attendances falling and some very rich men who underpin their clubs walking away

 

We end up bust.

 

Woods is keen on rich men subsidising clubs, there's no evidence he's keen on rich men creating imbalance (Leeds are not at the top and Wakefield are not at the bottom Damian) and rampant wage inflation, or cheesing off chairmen who then walk away??

[Dave T]

Then he works towards winning everything every year. We've been there and done that and it ends up with Salford selling out the AJ Bell and the rest of the clubs attendances falling and some very rich men who underpin their clubs walking away

We end up bust.

when have we seen this?

[Damien]

 

They do it like you say Damian,

 

Koukash pays treble wages to the best Great Britain and overseas players and put's  them in Salford jerseys, and they play under the worlds best coaches.

 

Then he works towards winning everything every year. We've been there and done that and it ends up with Salford selling out the AJ Bell and the rest of the clubs attendances falling and some very rich men who underpin their clubs walking away

 

We end up bust.

 

Woods is keen on rich men subsidising clubs, there's no evidence he's keen on rich men creating imbalance (Leeds are not at the top and Wakefield are not at the bottom Damian) and rampant wage inflation, or cheesing off chairmen who then walk away??

 

Where have I advocated any of that? Also we can highlight anomalies with clubs over and underachieving, its has always happened in all era's. What the Salary Cap in Super League has shown is that the status quo has largely remained the same, bar Bradford's troubles (which the Salary Cap did sweet F.A to prevent).

 

Is it really such a bad things clubs having ambition or extra money coming into the game through an entrepreneur? All I advocate is the Salary Cap set at a realistic level, linked to inflation that allows us to compete with other codes and competitions and which rewards or players. I would be very happy at £2.5 million with proviso's based on turnover etc.

 

All I've seen since the Salary Caps inception is it fall year on year in real terms. In 2003 it started off at £1.8 million and if we have a salary cap that if it had simply risen with inflation it would now be over £2.5 million. In 2002 Wigan spent £3.2 million in salaries, nearly £4.7 million in todays money. That is how far we have fallen as a sport.

 

Even these figures don't take into account several things. During this time TV money has risen drastically, season tickets have risen dramatically, attendances have risen dramatically, sponsorship has risen etc. Shock, horror the clubs still plead poverty, say there is no money because it is in their interests to do so. As I said every Super League club got £500,000 extra this season but if you listen to the clubs they are in exactly the same boat as last season - Cant afford to increase the Salary Cap, cant afford a reserve competition etc. If the cap doesn't increase with clubs getting an extra £500,000 when exactly will it increase? Where does all the extra money go?

 

We have players, young and old, severely disillusioned with the game. Players leaving for the NRL and Union and young players playing on national TV earning less than £20k a year. The better ones see Super League purely as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. I for one think it is about time that players were allowed to earn the going market rate and a decent living.

 

I will readily admit I am watching less and less Super League because of the declining quality, attendances and viewing figures say other fans are turning away too. Trundling along like the RFL and Super League are doing under whatever 'Every minute matters' or 'even competition' slogan isn't going to change that when the standard is so poor.

[The Parksider]

 

Is it really such a bad things clubs having ambition or extra money coming into the game through an entrepreneur? All I advocate is the Salary Cap set at a realistic level, linked to inflation that allows us to compete with other codes and competitions and which rewards or players. I would be very happy at £2.5 million with proviso's based on turnover etc.

 

Just answer the point about £2.5M.....

 

1. It's way below the NRL and EPRU cap so it won't stop players leaving.

 

2. It probably can be achieved by a good number of clubs but what about the clubs that cannot achieve it like Widnes, Wakefield and Castleford who will have their best players picked off them.

 

Neil Hudgell has been popping £500K a year in and he's a bit cheesed off with it. Your now asking him to pop another £700K of his hard earned in?? No chance as far as I can see.

 

These are four clubs who have never won a thing between them in SL and your suggestion far from changing the status quo may well root these clubs to the bottom of SL for years?

 

What then happens to crowds of clubs that cannot compete? 

 

Answers for just those two points please £2,5M won't stop the player drain, but will probably put several horses out the the race, and depress their crowds accordingly?

[Damien]

Just answer the point about £2.5M.....

 

1. It's way below the NRL and EPRU cap so it won't stop players leaving.

 

2. It probably can be achieved by a good number of clubs but what about the clubs that cannot achieve it like Widnes, Wakefield and Castleford who will have their best players picked off them.

 

Neil Hudgell has been popping £500K a year in and he's a bit cheesed off with it. Your now asking him to pop another £700K of his hard earned in?? No chance as far as I can see.

 

These are four clubs who have never won a thing between them in SL and your suggestion far from changing the status quo may well root these clubs to the bottom of SL for years?

 

What then happens to crowds of clubs that cannot compete? 

 

Answers for just those two points please £2,5M won't stop the player drain, but will probably put several horses out the the race, and depress their crowds accordingly?

 

I have explained why I think the cap should be substantially higher and I don't see why I should selectively answer the topics you choose when you ignore much of what I wrote to suit yourself. There is more than enough evidence to show that their is substantially more money in the game than 13 years ago.

 

Hudgell seems to have been popping in extra £500,000 forever, according to you. Are you really taking his comments over 3 years ago as gospel? I suppose the extra TV money in this time and in particular the extra £500,000 that all Super League clubs got this season just disappeared into thin air, I suppose the new stand at Hull KR (which was under completion when he made these comments and was a sever drain at the time) hasn't produced additional revenues since then. I am not going to take a selective figure like that into consideration any more than f I tried to make out Leeds make a £1 million a year.

 

You seem happy for Super League to have a race to the bottom and strive parity with the lowest common denominator, I am not. £2.5 million is the minimum the cap should be if it merely rose with inflation since its inception and I would tie in that it should rise with inflation year on year and with every increase in TV deal. I wouldn't even be against some sort of system where a club can only have, for example, 5 players on over £120,000 a year to stop an hoarding of talent. I would also like to see a minimum wage for players. The players certainly deserve better than having their pay reduced by over 40% in real terms in 13 years, would you take that sort of pay cut?

 

Clubs like Widnes, Wakefield and Castleford still get their best clubs taken by the top clubs and this will continue to be so. A big club comes calling and the likes of Tautai, Amor etc go running. The Salary Cap doesn't stop that. I really do think that if every Super League club was getting £3 million in TV money they would still plead poverty and people like you would be saying the cap shouldn't go up due to some mythical parity.

which doesn't even exist.

 

You also seem to be under the impression that the Super League Salary Cap needs to be the same as the NRL or Rugby Union, it doesn't. The NRL has much bigger squads to cover and many players have no great desire to go to Australia other than a huge increase in salary. Also the NRL Salary Cap has risen less than 20% since 2013 so increasing our cap to £2.5 million more than eats into this increase. I'd be confident that players getting an additional 40% or so would keep many of these players in Super League and allow us to attract better player from overseas.

 

Similarly Rugby Union has huge squads compared to Rugby League, 2 extra players and a need for specialist replacements such as 3 or 4 hookers in a squad, numerous props etc. This dilutes their cap massively per player. I am very confident that if, for example, Eastmond had been offered another 40% to stay in Rugby League he would have. 

 

Why would it put anyone out of the race (presumably you are meaning out of business here), clubs do not have to spend up to the cap and several haven't over the years. That is their choice and they shouldn't if they cant afford to. However if things are as bad as you make out and they cant afford to, even this year when the Salary Cap is fully covered by TV money, then perhaps they shouldn't even be in Super League anyway and maybe they should find a more sustainable level. On crowds, can Wakefield's crowds even be depressed any more? If clubs are going to suffer like you make out then maybe they should find a level more appropriate to their size and statue rather than being artificially supported to the detriment of the better cubs and to the detriment of the league.

[brooza]

This is all obviously to suit Toulouse and Toronto and there is not a chance that any other team outside Super League can spend £1.85million, most cant even spend the current restrictions. This therefore then leads to another question, Did clubs outside Super League vote for this or was it just imposed? I  find it hard to believe that clubs would vote for this when most cannot afford it. If it wasn't voted for then it makes a mockery of the RFL's claims that the Super League salary cap cannot be increased because a majority of clubs do not want it or cant afford it.

Super League rules are voted for by the SL clubs and RFL. Championship/L1 rules are dictated by the governing body

[DoubleD]

I have explained why I think the cap should be substantially higher and I don't see why I should selectively answer the topics you choose when you ignore much of what I wrote to suit yourself. There is more than enough evidence to show that their is substantially more money in the game than 13 years ago.

Hudgell seems to have been popping in extra £500,000 forever, according to you. Are you really taking his comments over 3 years ago as gospel? I suppose the extra TV money in this time and in particular the extra £500,000 that all Super League clubs got this season just disappeared into thin air, I suppose the new stand at Hull KR (which was under completion when he made these comments and was a sever drain at the time) hasn't produced additional revenues since then. I am not going to take a selective figure like that into consideration any more than f I tried to make out Leeds make a £1 million a year.

You seem happy for Super League to have a race to the bottom and strive parity with the lowest common denominator, I am not. £2.5 million is the minimum the cap should be if it merely rose with inflation since its inception and I would tie in that it should rise with inflation year on year and with every increase in TV deal. I wouldn't even be against some sort of system where a club can only have, for example, 5 players on over £120,000 a year to stop an hoarding of talent. I would also like to see a minimum wage for players. The players certainly deserve better than having their pay reduced by over 40% in real terms in 13 years, would you take that sort of pay cut?

Clubs like Widnes, Wakefield and Castleford still get their best clubs taken by the top clubs and this will continue to be so. A big club comes calling and the likes of Tautai, Amor etc go running. The Salary Cap doesn't stop that. I really do think that if every Super League club was getting £3 million in TV money they would still plead poverty and people like you would be saying the cap shouldn't go up due to some mythical parity.

which doesn't even exist.

You also seem to be under the impression that the Super League Salary Cap needs to be the same as the NRL or Rugby Union, it doesn't. The NRL has much bigger squads to cover and many players have no great desire to go to Australia other than a huge increase in salary. Also the NRL Salary Cap has risen less than 20% since 2013 so increasing our cap to £2.5 million more than eats into this increase. I'd be confident that players getting an additional 40% or so would keep many of these players in Super League and allow us to attract better player from overseas.

Similarly Rugby Union has huge squads compared to Rugby League, 2 extra players and a need for specialist replacements such as 3 or 4 hookers in a squad, numerous props etc. This dilutes their cap massively per player. I am very confident that if, for example, Eastmond had been offered another 40% to stay in Rugby League he would have.

Why would it put anyone out of the race (presumably you are meaning out of business here), clubs do not have to spend up to the cap and several haven't over the years. That is their choice and they shouldn't if they cant afford to. However if things are as bad as you make out and they cant afford to, even this year when the Salary Cap is fully covered by TV money, then perhaps they shouldn't even be in Super League anyway and maybe they should find a more sustainable level. On crowds, can Wakefield's crowds even be depressed any more? If clubs are going to suffer like you make out then maybe they should find a level more appropriate to their size and statue rather than being artificially supported to the detriment of the better cubs and to the detriment of the league.

Superb post

[binosh]

If they don't get promoted will Beaumont have to reduce the amount he pumps into the club?

No. He has commited until the end of 2018 as a minimum, in most press articles he consistently maintains if it's not this year then he will continue to strengthen until it eventually does happen.

Personally I see an RFL re-structure before then. As I have always stated you don't have to like him but you have to respect his commitment & drive. The fact he stays off social media now is a lesson well learned.

[Damien]

Superb post

 

Thanks