Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cheshire Setter

The Cap Paradox

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

The SC has never really been fit for purpose, once it started to work, marquee players were brought in to unbalance things again and ensure the same results as before the salary cap.

Teams have broken the SC rules and have just been handed a small fine. Where is the deterrent? 

The salary cap is only useful if most of the teams can spend up to it, if not, what is the point? If not - you will still end up with the same 4 or 5 names winning everything every year, like we have seen since the SC introduction.

 

??

May similar organisations have salary caps. Its considered beneficial.

The point of a Cap is not to spend up to it.  It is to stop you exceeding it.  Ask Nigel Wray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Almost all investment for growth comes from external sources, usually either private capital or loans.

The idea that business grow by reinvested profits just isnt realistic

??  No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Damien said:

I don't know why you are asking questions that have either already been answered or whose answers are obvious.

Gosh I’m so stupid. Please indulge my thick brain just once.  How many clubs do you think would thrive under a 5 mil salary cap right now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

??

May similar organisations have salary caps. Its considered beneficial.

The point of a Cap is not to spend up to it.  It is to stop you exceeding it.  Ask Nigel Wray.

If that is the case, if some teams cannot afford to spend up to it, why is there a need to stop them from exceeding it?

The SC could be set for £20M per season, but if teams can only afford to spend £250k before they face financial ruin, what is the point of it?

Surely, the primary aim of the SC was to level the playing field and stop the teams with more money simply buying success every year?

Therefore, the only way to level the playing field and have a competition that could be won by any of the 12 SL every year, is to ensure the cap is set at a level that all teams can afford, or at least come very close to affording without facing financial ruin.

If the aim is to even out the league, the SC rules also needed to change too, in terms of only the top 25 wage earners counting against the cap. For example, if Warrington or Wigans 25th highest wage earner was on £50k a year, there is nothing to stop them buying another 20 or 30 players at £49,999.99 p.a. none of them would count against the cap, all of them might be very good players and provide fantastic strength in depth, something that would undoubtedly improve their chances of success over a team like London for example, whose top earners might only be getting £50k a season.

It seems to me, that the clubs that could afford to pay more, didn't like the idea of poorer clubs having the ability to compete with them, so introduced the marquee rule, to effectively spend what they wanted to and get around the SC, in turn, keeping the status quo and success at the same wealthy clubs.

What use is the marquee rule, to clubs that can only afford to pay a fraction of the SC?

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I simply cannot see any practical use for a salary cap, unless it totally evens things out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dunbar said:

One of the problems with the salary cap is that it has stagnated in value when we should be looking to incrementally grow it in my view.

In 2002 when the salary cap value was introduced it was set at £1.8M whereas in 2019 it is £2M. 

Using the Bank of England inflation calculator, £1.8M in 2002 is the equivalent of £2.9M today which means that in real terms the value of the cap has fallen by around £900k (or 31%).

The marquee rule helps a little but as well as the marquee rule we should be looking to increase the the value of the cap above inflation and then we can freeze on an annual basis if we start to see any pain points in the clubs.

If we had used a formulae of inflation +2% from 2002 to today then that would have put the cap at around £4.1M in 2019 which would give clubs more buying power but wouldn't have been such a big impact of trying to raise the cap by £1M+ in one go.

I suppose the other way of looking at it is the salary cap in 2002 was £1.8m and central funding (TV money) was £1.2m.

In 2013? 2014?, Central funding went to £1.8m?, salary cap stayed the same. It should have gone up at that time - proportionally would have probably been too big a step, but at least by the same amount.

The other thought would be do we need a salary cap lower limit? Ie, clubs have to pay their squad a minimum of 90% of the salary cap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, redsi42 said:

Gosh I’m so stupid. Please indulge my thick brain just once.  How many clubs do you think would thrive under a 5 mil salary cap right now?

Why have you arbitrary decided on £5 million? Hardly anyone has said they want such a figure and I've certainly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The cap shouldn't exist. There isn't some goldilocks figure, it just doesnt work and is incompatible with our system.

Scrap it completely and replace it with a points system that would be open and transparent and would stop talent hoarding. 

Nothing wrong with talent hoarding if those clubs have already invested in bringing those players through their own academy system. 9 of Saints GF winning team (would have been 10 if Lees had been fit) came through their own academy. Whats the point of having a system that spreads talent around if it penalises those clubs with good junior production lines and rewards those that don't !

If every team had a large proportion of their squad of really good quality home grown players then everyone would be in a position to be challenging for the title every year. (and before you start talking about the big clubs poaching players, if every club was well run and generating enough income then they wouldn't need to sell those players to survive)


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saint Toppy said:

Nothing wrong with talent hoarding if those clubs have already invested in bringing those players through their own academy system. 9 of Saints GF winning team (would have been 10 if Lees had been fit) came through their own academy. Whats the point of having a system that spreads talent around if it penalises those clubs with good junior production lines and rewards those that don't !

If every team had a large proportion of their squad of really good quality home grown players then everyone would be in a position to be challenging for the title every year. (and before you start talking about the big clubs poaching players, if every club was well run and generating enough income then they wouldn't need to sell those players to survive)

Of course there are problems with talent hoarding. The big clubs produce a lot of young talent, but they also buy in young talent from other teams - Look at Pearce-Paul going from London to Wigan recently, a young talented player that has represented Lancashire, but will now be going to Wigan. What does that say about the players they already have in their academy? Not all of them will be getting the attention that they need at their level.

It's a strange one really, but the talent needs to find a way of spreading out, as this helps even the league out for all teams, having the ability to call on top quality young players that can be introduced to the first team in times of need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea that the top clubs don't like the salary cap is ludicrous. It keeps their expenditure relatively low which enables them to spend their greater revenue in off field areas, they are still able to win everything anyway and because of that they can get the best talent and keep it due to their being little incentive to move elsewhere. We don't have division where all 12 clubs are equally as attractive to players and nor have we, until very recently, allowed those with the finances to come into the less attractive clubs to quite literally fund their increase in attractiveness to the players.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cdd said:

I don’t think we should simply “raise the cap” that will result in players like Willie Isa earning more than they do now with zero benefits to the sport. If we raise the cap we just raise the average salary for average players, if we allow clubs to spend more money it MUST be on talent. 
 

What we DO need is more dispensations.

 

HOME GROWN - Allow 3 marquee player dispensations for HOME GROWN talent. It will encourage more clubs to develop their own and rewards the ones that already do. We don’t need to just sign top talent we need to hold onto it as well. 

MARQUEE PLAYER - Allow 2 marquee player dispensations for players signed from other clubs.
 

RETURNING PLAYERS - Dispensation for players returning to Super League from the NRL. Let’s get John Bateman, Tom Burgess, Elliot Whitehead and George Williams playing in our competition. But it still allows players to go to the NRL if they wish but guarantees that SL clubs can compete with the salaries when they return. 

FRENCH PLAYERS - Allow 2 dispensations for young french players (not signed from Catalans). This way we get an extra 20 or so French players trained and playing at super league level. 

RU PLAYERS - Allow 1 marquee slot for a RU players.

RU UNDER 20’s - Allow 1 marquee slot for RU players under the age of 20. Let’s steal their brightest talent.


 

Some decent ideas there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cdd said:

I don’t think we should simply “raise the cap” that will result in players like Willie Isa earning more than they do now with zero benefits to the sport. If we raise the cap we just raise the average salary for average players, if we allow clubs to spend more money it MUST be on talent. 
 

What we DO need is more dispensations.

 

HOME GROWN - Allow 3 marquee player dispensations for HOME GROWN talent. It will encourage more clubs to develop their own and rewards the ones that already do. We don’t need to just sign top talent we need to hold onto it as well. 

MARQUEE PLAYER - Allow 2 marquee player dispensations for players signed from other clubs.
 

RETURNING PLAYERS - Dispensation for players returning to Super League from the NRL. Let’s get John Bateman, Tom Burgess, Elliot Whitehead and George Williams playing in our competition. But it still allows players to go to the NRL if they wish but guarantees that SL clubs can compete with the salaries when they return. 

FRENCH PLAYERS - Allow 2 dispensations for young french players (not signed from Catalans). This way we get an extra 20 or so French players trained and playing at super league level. 

RU PLAYERS - Allow 1 marquee slot for a RU players.

RU UNDER 20’s - Allow 1 marquee slot for RU players under the age of 20. Let’s steal their brightest talent.


 

I particularly like your first point.

This was something that really annoyed me when Melbourne Storm got done for salary cap breaches and stripped of their titles.

The Storm never went out and bought success - most of their big earning players had come through their system.

They invested in those players’ developments, turned them into superstars and took them to a level where they deserved to earn ‘x’ amount. Surely that’s what you want clubs to do?

I don’t think clubs should be punished for excellent development work - they should be rewarded 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2019 at 11:18, Cdd said:

I don’t think we should simply “raise the cap” that will result in players like Willie Isa earning more than they do now with zero benefits to the sport. If we raise the cap we just raise the average salary for average players, if we allow clubs to spend more money it MUST be on talent. 
 

What we DO need is more dispensations.

 

HOME GROWN - Allow 3 marquee player dispensations for HOME GROWN talent. It will encourage more clubs to develop their own and rewards the ones that already do. We don’t need to just sign top talent we need to hold onto it as well. 

MARQUEE PLAYER - Allow 2 marquee player dispensations for players signed from other clubs.
 

RETURNING PLAYERS - Dispensation for players returning to Super League from the NRL. Let’s get John Bateman, Tom Burgess, Elliot Whitehead and George Williams playing in our competition. But it still allows players to go to the NRL if they wish but guarantees that SL clubs can compete with the salaries when they return. 

FRENCH PLAYERS - Allow 2 dispensations for young french players (not signed from Catalans). This way we get an extra 20 or so French players trained and playing at super league level. 

RU PLAYERS - Allow 1 marquee slot for a RU players.

RU UNDER 20’s - Allow 1 marquee slot for RU players under the age of 20. Let’s steal their brightest talent.


 

All decent ideas. The French one could be stretched to Europe in my opinion, even though most of the eligibile players would still come from France realistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2019 at 20:31, PREPOSTEROUS said:

I dont recall seeing or hearing about clubs with millions sat in the bank just waiting to be spent on giving the same players more money. The game can only spend what it generates which in the grand scheme of things is not very much, certainly nothing close to justify a £5m cap. The only way an increase would be on is if a TV deal gives more money to pay for it, anything else would not cover it (sponsorship/gates) pr would be unsustainable (rich benefactor).

Absolutely.The top turnover SL clubs are spending 50 to 60pct of revenue on combined wage bills.Bang in line with Premier League soccer.RU premiership is spending an unsustainable 75pct plus.

For salaries to grow singificantly then top line needs to also.

One lesson of our history I would say is that overspending on players has never worked out well.

 

  

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add a bit more context today's Sky money of approx 1.8mil per club is bigger than any clubs current total gate money.

I think Premiership RU clubs with similar tv and gate money get an extra 6mil or so from the RFU from the internationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, koli said:

To add a bit more context today's Sky money of approx 1.8mil per club is bigger than any clubs current total gate money.

I think Premiership RU clubs with similar tv and gate money get an extra 6mil or so from the RFU from the internationals.

Have you any links to back that claim up because it doesn't sound true.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, koli said:

The published accounts of the various clus.

The maths dont add up an average of 10k crowd will draw over 2 million and leeds, wigan,saints have bigger averages and Warrington, hull draw just over 10k.

Edited by ELBOWSEYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.VAT needs to be deducted from the head line prices  so net to club is 20pct lower.

2.A significant number of tickets are sold at prices below the headline -concessions,season tickets,complimentaries etc.

Net to clubs is more like 12 to 14 per pax.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always liked the idea of a soft cap with a luxury tax - similar to used in some US sports - rather than a hard cap.  It allows far greater transparency and allows teams with money to spend it.  

For Super League you could tax at 50p or a full pound for every pound over the cap.  That then all goes into a pot to be divided between the clubs that do not go over.

So if the salary cap is 2 mil and Leeds, for example, spend 3 mil then (at 50p tax) they would actually have to outlay 3.5 mil with 500,000 shared by the teams below the cap.

Edited by Goughy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

1.VAT needs to be deducted from the head line prices  so net to club is 20pct lower.

2.A significant number of tickets are sold at prices below the headline -concessions,season tickets,complimentaries etc.

Net to clubs is more like 12 to 14 per pax.

 

 

And a significant amount are sold to away fans at full value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, koli said:

To add a bit more context today's Sky money of approx 1.8mil per club is bigger than any clubs current total gate money.

I think Premiership RU clubs with similar tv and gate money get an extra 6mil or so from the RFU from the internationals.

Six Nations Rugby and the International Game seriously reinforce Premiership Rugby's ability to spend more money.

The only place in the world where club rugby is stacked with dough is France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...