Jump to content
Rupert Prince

Cut the salary cap in two

Recommended Posts

In a something called "By the Balls" podcast (which I do not know how to link to), Brian Carney suggests that the Cap might be best cut in half. He says that uncertainties about TV contract might leave teams out of money. He is conflicted he says since he does not like the Cap anyway!!

Pointedly, he says that far too many players are overpaid anyway.

It strikes me that is clubs cannot afford to pay players then they just pay what they can and the Cap is irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Carney thinks driving anyone good enough to get gigs in the NRL or rugby union out of Superleague - just when they're coming up to negotiations for the next TV contract - is actually going to help safeguard the game's future, he's beyond stupid.

Edited by ghost crayfish
  • Like 8

Share this post


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

Scrap it and go for a points system, the fact toronto want to, but cant bring in Latrell is massively counter productive. 

In a rare show of unity it would appear that I am in agreement with you, certainly on scrapping the cap, not sure what your points system entails but it could be worth a try?

Share this post


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

Scrap it and go for a points system, the fact toronto want to, but cant bring in Latrell is massively counter productive. 

I am split on this whole thing. 

The sport needs to make decisions based on what is right for the whole sport and we shouldn't knee-jerk based on a rich owner wanting to sign a player in the short-term. There is provision for 24 slots available in SL for Latrell Mitchell to occupy via the marquee rule, and I don't think it is necessarily in our interests to open the floodgates and get rid of two decades of financial prudence which gets us to a place where SL clubs are relatively stable.

We have seen what happens when we have no cap - it is like the 90's we have one or two teams who can dominate, and it is all built on sand as other clubs then overspend on players to keep up. It all comes crashing down, as it did for most clubs in that period. The 90's despite all of the star players from Union, apparent higher profile of the game and players, still did not see blue-chip sponsors flocking, and most clubs ended up in financial difficulty. Nowadays in SL we see a massive improvement in facilities and stability, which I think the SC has contributed to.

However, there is a point where sustainability becomes a massive turnoff for fans, sponsors, broadcasters etc. And I think we have reached that, so I am pleased to see some of the more exciting signings for SL this year via the Marquee Rules (it has taken a couple of years, but I think clubs are now getting it!).

We can also see what happens if you set a Salary Cap that is so high it does little to balance the books - RU is a perfect example - some of their clubs are losing over £5m per year, and quite simply we do not have that kind of investor in the game. 

So I am in favour of tweaks and increases to allow the game to capitalise on the likes of Mitchell etc. but I am also in favour of there being some kind of control.

I must admit to preferring the 50% of turnover system, but I am sure that is flawed.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Get rid of it.

I'm not sure why the successful clubs should support the dross.

Excellence should be striven for by all, not mediocrity.

 

 

I think that’s a tad harsh but I agree with the gist of it. The also rans are holding SL back, it needs to be more ruthless instead of allowing clubs to constantly tread water because that’s what they’ve done for god knows how long. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

I think that’s a tad harsh but I agree with the gist of it. The also rans are holding SL back, it needs to be more ruthless instead of allowing clubs to constantly tread water because that’s what they’ve done for god knows how long. 

Quite - dragging everyone down to the level of Salford and the rest so they can have the veneer of competing is not the answer.

It bothers me not one iota how successful clubs are or what they spend - with the money they can generate.

If that is an issue - other clubs should improve and generate more money. Not look to drag the playing field down to their level.

If clubs overspend - meh. I don't pretend to tell people how and what to spend their own money on. I don't see businesses or clubs are any different.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think this fake narrative of the cap dragging clubs down to the dross needs to be challenged. 

The SL clubs as a collective can amend the cap, if they can't get a majority to support then that is because the SL cannot afford it. 

And as we have seen in RU, even so called successful clubs are being propped up to cover for millions of pounds of losses per year. 

Hopefully now with TWP replacing London we are nearing a place where we have more rich clubs than poor ones and the cap value can be challenged, but we should remember there have been significant increases in cap allowance in recent years. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Quite - dragging everyone down to the level of Salford and the rest so they can have the veneer of competing is not the answer.

It bothers me not one iota how successful clubs are or what they spend - with the money they can generate.

If that is an issue - other clubs should improve and generate more money. Not look to drag the playing field down to their level.

If clubs overspend - meh. I don't pretend to tell people how and what to spend their own money on. I don't see businesses or clubs are any different.

Salford just got to a Grand Final despite spending half a million less than the rest - I'm sure a few clubs would have loved to have been 'dragged down to that level'. We exist within our means and have nothing against the salary cap. It is because of clubs who do not live within their means that the salary cap exists. Stop bringing the likes of Salford and Wakefield (another club that manages its money well but isn't loaded) up as negatives.

If the salary cap increases and Salford fall further behind because we don't have a sugar daddy then so be it. I'm with Date T though - I'm not entirely convinced that it is the 'answer'.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LR23 said:

Salford just got to a Grand Final despite spending half a million less than the rest - I'm sure a few clubs would have loved to have been 'dragged down to that level'. We exist within our means and have nothing against the salary cap. It is because of clubs who do not live within their means that the salary cap exists. Stop bringing the likes of Salford and Wakefield (another club that manages its money well but isn't loaded) up as negatives.

If the salary cap increases and Salford fall further behind because we don't have a sugar daddy then so be it. I'm with Date T though - I'm not entirely convinced that it is the 'answer'.

Plenty of respect for what Salford have done.

But most SL clubs benefit from the cap holding the larger teams back. 

Share this post


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

I am split on this whole thing. 

The sport needs to make decisions based on what is right for the whole sport and we shouldn't knee-jerk based on a rich owner wanting to sign a player in the short-term. There is provision for 24 slots available in SL for Latrell Mitchell to occupy via the marquee rule, and I don't think it is necessarily in our interests to open the floodgates and get rid of two decades of financial prudence which gets us to a place where SL clubs are relatively stable.

We have seen what happens when we have no cap - it is like the 90's we have one or two teams who can dominate, and it is all built on sand as other clubs then overspend on players to keep up. It all comes crashing down, as it did for most clubs in that period. The 90's despite all of the star players from Union, apparent higher profile of the game and players, still did not see blue-chip sponsors flocking, and most clubs ended up in financial difficulty. Nowadays in SL we see a massive improvement in facilities and stability, which I think the SC has contributed to.

However, there is a point where sustainability becomes a massive turnoff for fans, sponsors, broadcasters etc. And I think we have reached that, so I am pleased to see some of the more exciting signings for SL this year via the Marquee Rules (it has taken a couple of years, but I think clubs are now getting it!).

We can also see what happens if you set a Salary Cap that is so high it does little to balance the books - RU is a perfect example - some of their clubs are losing over £5m per year, and quite simply we do not have that kind of investor in the game. 

So I am in favour of tweaks and increases to allow the game to capitalise on the likes of Mitchell etc. but I am also in favour of there being some kind of control.

I must admit to preferring the 50% of turnover system, but I am sure that is flawed.

I think replacing the salary cap with an FFP-style system is the way to go. Those clubs that can afford to spend more can do so prudently, whilst those clubs that can't but want to compete are nudged to get the business plan right to pay for that spend. 

I've listened to the Carney interview and I think he misses a big part of the argument. He talks about how you can justify cutting the cap because "Widnes only had £700 left", yet what he didn't talk about is what Widnes were doing to actually grow. His whole argument seemed to be based on stopping the leakage from the bottom, but not on filling the top. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We have seen what happens when we have no cap - it is like the 90's we have one or two teams who can dominate, and it is all built on sand as other clubs then overspend on players to keep up.

I'm not sure that scenario is too far removed from what we have now.

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Nowadays in SL we see a massive improvement in facilities and stability, which I think the SC has contributed to.

I'm not sure if this is to do with the SC or more an awareness/appreciation of the need for better facilities to maximise income via improved corporate facilities and increased non-gameday usage.

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I don't think it is necessarily in our interests to open the floodgates and get rid of two decades of financial prudence which gets us to a place where SL clubs are relatively stable.

But are they only stable if they stay in SL? We've still seen loads of problems at various clubs who have been striving for promotion and/or struggling with relegation. For instance, would we see less of this type of problem if we removed the SC but also returned to licencing to eliminate the instability issues associated with P&R?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like more inane, incomprehensible, baseless, contradictory nonsense from Carney.

Players from team’s Academies should be exempt from being counted on the salary cap in an attempt to promote growing the game, keeping our best talent in the sport and in Super League and with the hope it will help the International game, too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point being missed is that Carney is suggesting that clubs need to cut the size of their cloth now because the TV revenue is going to be cut during the TV negotiations (ie SKY).   He works with SKY and so he ought to know.  Is he right?  This seems worrying.  Let's be frank, if TV money is cut then the size of SL might have to be cut.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I really think this fake narrative of the cap dragging clubs down to the dross needs to be challenged. 

The SL clubs as a collective can amend the cap, if they can't get a majority to support then that is because the SL cannot afford it. 

And as we have seen in RU, even so called successful clubs are being propped up to cover for millions of pounds of losses per year. 

Hopefully now with TWP replacing London we are nearing a place where we have more rich clubs than poor ones and the cap value can be challenged, but we should remember there have been significant increases in cap allowance in recent years. 

That said Dave the top teams have no incentive to change the cap. They already benefit from not having to over invest in their playing squad and being able to recruit and keep players for less money than less successful clubs can. Players want to play for successful clubs and the amount of money offered by less successful clubs is often either not significant enough to change their minds, or so significant that it hampers their ability to have depth in other areas.

This is true right down to academy level where the top clubs offer the best experiences and facilities. 

Leeds, Saints and Wigan love the cap! In fact I'd argue its the top clubs liking the suppressed wages in SL that have kept the cap low. Their only competition is from the NRL and Rugby Union and that competition has only really livened up in the past couple of years. Even then, that competition is outside SL and so realistically doesn't affect their chances of winning a SL title or Challenge Cup.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The SL clubs as a collective can amend the cap, if they can't get a majority to support then that is because the SL cannot afford it. 

 

Not sure that is true. Clubs might be able to afford it and others not. 

Why would the others vote to allow Leeds etc. to run riot with the chequebook?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

In a something called "By the Balls" podcast (which I do not know how to link to), Brian Carney suggests that the Cap might be best cut in half. He says that uncertainties about TV contract might leave teams out of money. He is conflicted he says since he does not like the Cap anyway!!

Pointedly, he says that far too many players are overpaid anyway.

It strikes me that is clubs cannot afford to pay players then they just pay what they can and the Cap is irrelevant. 

Having listened to the podcast what I got from it was that the real increase in wages has gone to the middling to average players moving from say 40k salary to 70k plus whilst the top players haven't actually seen that much of an increase (marquee etc aside).

This has also coincided with a perception at least that the quality of the league has gone down, I.e. we're paying more for less.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Having listened to the podcast what I got from it was that the real increase in wages has gone to the middling to average players moving from say 40k salary to 70k plus whilst the top players haven't actually seen that much of an increase (marquee etc aside).

This has also coincided with a perception at least that the quality of the league has gone down, I.e. we're paying more for less.

What has it got to do with Carney what players get paid? It's a voluntary transaction between club and player ffs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are players overpaid? They are paid by what the market dictates. 

To be honest when reading the autobiographies of some players of the past it seems players today are paid way below in real terms as what they were 20-30 years ago

Edited by Mattrhino
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leonard said:

What has it got to do with Carney what players get paid? It's a voluntary transaction between club and player ffs.

 

I mean he's one of the chief broadcasters on our sport speaking on a podcast would you rather he gave no opinions and we just heard Christmas songs in the background?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Why are players overpaid? They are paid by what the market dictates. 

To be honest when reading the autobiographies of some players of the past it seems players today are paid way below in real terms as what they were. 

Quite.

Carney should pop into my office and just starting people what they are and aren't allowed to get paid.

Although I would disagree they are 100% market driven - as the cap clearly limits what some could get paid.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...