Jump to content
Rupert Prince

Cut the salary cap in two

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Moove said:

In what way? The majority of clubs aren't even spending the full cap and/or the dispensations they already have available

Because it means the top clubs can’t spend as much as they are able to, and as a result our best players are being lost to Super League. As so many have said, it’s dragging everyone to the bottom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Because it means the top clubs can’t spend as much as they are able to, and as a result our best players are being lost to Super League. As so many have said, it’s dragging everyone to the bottom.

Which top clubs can't spend as much as they are able to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moove said:

Which top clubs can't spend as much as they are able to?

No one really knows until it happens and it's all speculation until that time. Clubs don't have to spend what they can't afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moove said:

Which top clubs can't spend as much as they are able to?

Any that are at the salary cap. Leeds and Wigan for starters, TWP certainly, possibly Saints, Wire and Hull too. Them being constrained by other clubs’ short fallings is anti-competitive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Any that are at the salary cap. Leeds and Wigan for starters, TWP certainly, possibly Saints, Wire and Hull too. Them being constrained by other clubs’ short fallings is anti-competitive. 

The same Wigan who, according to their own words, are having to 'reduce wage costs' this year? Who would be paying for Saints to make an even bigger loss? Hull don't even use the existing marquee dispensation do they?

We're not just talking an extra couple of quid here to make a difference in player quality, we're talking millions of pounds extra for clubs who can barely get their revenue above £7m or whatever. That's before you get to the 'smaller' clubs.

Simply removing the salary cap isn't going to suddenly result in even the top clubs signing SBW-type players. Restructuring it to promote healthy growth of clubs might do over time.

Edited by Moove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave T said:

If the majority can afford it and are frustrated by the salary cap, they can change it.

What if the majority can afford it but arent frustrated by it?

What if half the clubs can afford it and arent frustrated by it as it entrenched their position at the top of the game and half cant afford it is as it keep them competitive and if the cap didnt exist they would drop down the leagues abe replaced by others?

Share this post


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

I think this is where our opinions differ, we come to different conclusions here. I think the cap has worked in the levelling point, It has stopped a club with a wealthy backer just signing all the best talent aggressively and winning out of sight. And whilst we technically only have four winners of SL, we can't dismiss the competitiveness of the likes of Warrington, Cas, Hudds, Salford, Hull during the SL era. The way we decide champions though puts it down to an 80m game of Rugby. The cap isn't to blame for Cas and Wire failing to win their GF's which would have meant 6 winners from  a 12 team comp.

But the bigger point is that the differentiator now is much more than cash. The stronger clubs are the ones that tend to do better. I am cool with the fact that the richest isn't always the best, and things like youth development, culture, facilities etc. play a big part in success. 

We can dismiss the competitiveness of those clubs as when push came to shove, they weren’t good enough. They also don’t/didn’t have enough winning DNA in their make up to come back from it and keep trying to win trophies (apart from possibly Warrington or Hull). Thus we don’t have 6 winners but 4 - and one of those (Bradford) is unlikely to be challenging for trophies anytime soon, which makes that total of 4 winners even worse.
Could have, should have doesn’t count in the record books.

 I aren’t arguing about youth development, facilities etc because these should be taken as read. It shouldn’t need enforcing that clubs develop their own talent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That clubs have the marquee option and choose not to spend millions on the best doesnt mean that they cant afford to. That faulty logic

Clubs spend as much as they have to and as little as they can get away with. The salary cap keeps that figure artificially low. Clubs dont go out and sign better player for more money, not because they can't afford it, but because they dont have to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

What guff !

There's nothing stopping Toronto from signing Latrell Mitchell now and making him one of their marquee players. They'll just have to cut 1 or 2 other players from their squad to accommodate him under the total cap limit.

If they really wanted to they could sign Mitchell, Tedesco and say Boyd Cordner and pay them £10M each and have each as their marquee players. They just have to then manage the other 22 players in their squad to stay under the cap. 

You have exactly explained why they cant. The salary cap means at some point something has to give because of an artificial creation and that if Toronto want to sign mitchel Tedesco and Cordner they also have to sign someone a bit who will play for peanuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

What guff !

There's nothing stopping Toronto from signing Latrell Mitchell now and making him one of their marquee players. They'll just have to cut 1 or 2 other players from their squad to accommodate him under the total cap limit.

If they really wanted to they could sign Mitchell, Tedesco and say Boyd Cordner and pay them £10M each and have each as their marquee players. They just have to then manage the other 22 players in their squad to stay under the cap. 

You have exactly explained why they cant. The salary cap means at some point something has to give because of an artificial creation and that if Toronto want to sign mitchel Tedesco and Cordner they also have to sign someone a bit who will play for peanuts.

Share this post


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

That clubs have the marquee option and choose not to spend millions on the best doesnt mean that they cant afford to. That faulty logic

Clubs spend as much as they have to and as little as they can get away with. The salary cap keeps that figure artificially low. Clubs dont go out and sign better player for more money, not because they can't afford it, but because they dont have to. 

As Damien said earlier though it's all speculation that clubs can afford it but are choosing not to. Why would Hull FC choose not to if they can afford it? They're not winning anything anyway. Why would Wigan say they're having to reduce wages if they can afford it? They weren't particularly competitive at the business end of the season. There isn't really any evidence to back up the assertion that these clubs are all sat on a pot of cash which they could spend on numerous SBWs but choose not to because they don't have to to survive. Is mere survival the end game for these clubs?

Edited by Moove
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Moove said:

As Damien said earlier though it's all speculation that clubs can afford it but are choosing not to. Why would Hull FC choose not to if they can afford it? They're not winning anything anyway. Why would Wigan say they're having to reduce wages if they can afford it? They weren't particularly competitive at the business end of the season. There isn't really any evidence to back up the assertion that these clubs are all sat on a pot of cash which they could spend on numerous SBWs but choose not to because they don't have to to survive. Is mere survival the end game for these clubs?

Because they dont have to. 

Why would they if they dont have to? 

Hull fans may want to win everything but Adam Pearson is probably happy being there or there abouts and saving a bit of money

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Moove said:

The same Wigan who, according to their own words, are having to 'reduce wage costs' this year? Who would be paying for Saints to make an even bigger loss? Hull don't even use the existing marquee dispensation do they?

We're not just talking an extra couple of quid here to make a difference in player quality, we're talking millions of pounds extra for clubs who can barely get their revenue above £7m or whatever. That's before you get to the 'smaller' clubs.

Simply removing the salary cap isn't going to suddenly result in even the top clubs signing SBW-type players. Restructuring it to promote healthy growth of clubs might do over time.

I’m not talking about more SBW type players, even keeping some here for a while instead of them going to the NRL would be good. Do you really think SL is stronger for our best players leaving to play elsewhere?

 

Share this post


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

Because they dont have to. 

Why would they if they dont have to? 

Hull fans may want to win everything but Adam Pearson is probably happy being there or there abouts and saving a bit of money

So how would removing the cap solve that? Unless there are rich clubs/investors waiting in the wings surely Hull (just using them as an example) would just plod along as they do now and the one or two mega-rich clubs would continue to hoover up the trophies. That doesn't really help the game as a whole grow, those one or two might see some growth but it doesn't strike me as particularly sustainable growth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I’m not talking about more SBW type players, even keeping some here for a while instead of them going to the NRL would be good. Do you really think SL is stronger for our best players leaving to play elsewhere?

 

Where did I say SL is stronger for our best players leaving to play elsewhere? That's daft. Realistically though, how many of our best players have left? How many of those have left due to wage demands?

Share this post


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

That's called novelty - it wears off. 

That's not a model - that's an endless pit of money Toronto is very fortunate to have at it's disposal. 

Optimism is a feeling/emotion - by itself it never actually changed anything. 

Trust me Kayak, you will be dragged down to our level of despair no matter how positive you try to be - we'll beat you with experience. 

No you won't....no you won't....no you won't!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dave T said:

There was not a single bit of 'can't do' in my post. Feel free to quote where you think there was. 

I'm happy to talk specifics rather than soundbites, but there is very little that can be replicated by other existing clubs. I think one of the key things is the matchday experience being more than a game of Rugby, which we seemed to grasp in around 1996, and then forgot around 1998!

SO much to learn...SO little time!

Share this post


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

Where did I say SL is stronger for our best players leaving to play elsewhere? That's daft. Realistically though, how many of our best players have left? How many of those have left due to wage demands?

You’re supporting a restrictive wage cap, so I just assumed (naively) that you thought it was for the good of SL. And lots of our best players have left, as you know, so I won’t name them for you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moove said:

Bit of a false equivalency to be fair, given that most of the premier league would have a surplus of millions on day one if they suddenly had to spend the same as Norwich. We wouldn't be removing the cap from a position of commercial strength where the majority of clubs are able to spend more if only they were allowed to. We also don't (currently) have a queue of wealthy clubs to replace the struggling ones

I guess its how you see the chicken and egg scenario...

For me the stronger clubs, were the ones that drove the value of the competition. Resulting in higher TV deals, more commercial sponsorship type income and influx of wealthy individuals or groups to he Premier league. Meaning that even the previous weaker financial clubs and least valued clubs gained a bigger, and bigger income. Even those previous weaker clubs can afford to fill their teams with international level players.    What was once top 2, hen top 4, then top six, now that top list is growing.....

For me keeping the salary cap so low as to suit the lowest common denominator is never going to grow a stronger commercially SL with a strong viable future in a highly competitive sports and entertainment market place..

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You’re supporting a restrictive wage cap, so I just assumed (naively) that you thought it was for the good of SL. And lots of our best players have left, as you know, so I won’t name them for you. 

I'm supportive of a mechanism which restricts clubs spending what they can afford, with space for growth, without severely skewing the competitiveness of the competition or encouraging clubs to spend to the point of bankruptcy in a futile attempt to keep pace with one or two clubs. All the while at the expense of supporting participation, local player development or facilities. The current cap doesn't really do that, neither does removing it altogether.

In terms of top players leaving, the ones who spring to mind are Graham, Burgess, Tomkins (who came back), Whitehead and Bateman in recent years, plus now Williams. How many of those left due to cap restrictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm all for making positive decisions on the future of the game, but we need to be realistic about where we are, rather than doom and gloom and make sure we don't abandon everything that has helped the growth of the last 23 years.

I think it's important to define 'growth'. Arguably some aspects of the game have grown whilst others arguably haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave T said:

And whilst we technically only have four winners of SL, we can't dismiss the competitiveness of the likes of Warrington, Cas, Hudds, Salford, Hull during the SL era. The way we decide champions though puts it down to an 80m game of Rugby. The cap isn't to blame for Cas and Wire failing to win their GF's which would have meant 6 winners from  a 12 team comp.

But the same case can arguably be made pre-SL. The 1993 Championship saw Wigan win the title on points difference from Saints. In 1994 they won on points difference over both Bradford and Warrington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

What if the majority can afford it but arent frustrated by it?

What if half the clubs can afford it and arent frustrated by it as it entrenched their position at the top of the game and half cant afford it is as it keep them competitive and if the cap didnt exist they would drop down the leagues abe replaced by others?

Then unfortunately that is life. The current owners are the people running SL at the moment. I'd be perfectly comfortable moving to a better model that sees SLE as a true governing body making these kind of decisions rather than a puppet for the clubs. 

I suspect we are some way off that. 

Share this post


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

We can dismiss the competitiveness of those clubs as when push came to shove, they weren’t good enough. They also don’t/didn’t have enough winning DNA in their make up to come back from it and keep trying to win trophies (apart from possibly Warrington or Hull). Thus we don’t have 6 winners but 4 - and one of those (Bradford) is unlikely to be challenging for trophies anytime soon, which makes that total of 4 winners even worse.
Could have, should have doesn’t count in the record books.

 I aren’t arguing about youth development, facilities etc because these should be taken as read. It shouldn’t need enforcing that clubs develop their own talent. 

The problem is we see that without caps, these other things are the first to go. 

The point about number of winners is that we have had both Wire and Cas go into finals as the best team of the year and favourites, but they lost. That isn't a salary cap issue that they lost, but the stats show 4 winners and not 6. But that point ignores context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think it's important to define 'growth'. Arguably some aspects of the game have grown whilst others arguably haven't.

Turnover and crowds in the top division, but your point is valid. 

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...