Jump to content
Rupert Prince

Cut the salary cap in two

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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.

You don't need to remind me! I also remember Widnes winning the Championship. We should also remember that 2 of those 3 were on their knees a short while later through spending on trying to match Wigan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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. 

I think there's an element of truth to that, a certain cache to owning a club I suspect and if it doesn't cost the earth all the better.

Share this post


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

You don't need to remind me! I also remember Widnes winning the Championship. We should also remember that 2 of those 3 were on their knees a short while later through spending on trying to match Wigan. 

Fair point

Share this post


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

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. 

It was before my time in RL but I seem to remember Bradford Northern only losing out to Wigan on points difference for a championship title? I’m sure there are other examples too. So we had instances of competition then, how did this occur with Wigan buying up every man and his dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

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

I thought only the top 25 earners counted on the salary cap?

Share this post


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

It was before my time in RL but I seem to remember Bradford Northern only losing out to Wigan on points difference for a championship title? I’m sure there are other examples too. So we had instances of competition then, how did this occur with Wigan buying up every man and his dog?

Two reasons imo. Ultimately it is a sport, and like now, we will still get shock results etc. 

The other big one is that all that happened was other clubs with crowd averages around 5k were spending big to stay competitive. At the end of Wigan's golden decade a lot of clubs were an absolute mess. 

But Wigan's winning record of 7 Championships over a decade, and 8 consecutive Cup wins speak for themselves. 

Share this post


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

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. 

But that isnt an argument in favour of the SC itself, simply an acceptance that the club owners may use it to exploit cheaper labour in their interests ahead of the game.

The cap isnt necessary, doesnt work as it should and in many instances is counter productive.

And that's without even addressing some of the unintended consequences such as the prioritisation of utility over quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A points system would allow more focus, tweaking and actual accuracy on what caps try to achieve. It would accentuate rewards and punishments for clubs not building squads as they should, it would allow for more quality, it would allow for more competitiveness with other sports.

It would allow us to look more holistically at the game and prioritise the expansion of the game in terms of players and allow us to support the international game.

It would still act as a brake on wage inflation, it be clear, open and transparent, 

The only drawback is that the richer clubs will be able to spend more if they wish on certain players which may mean that poorer clubs who have failed off the field arent as artificially competitive. 

Share this post


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

But that isnt an argument in favour of the SC itself, simply an acceptance that the club owners may use it to exploit cheaper labour in their interests ahead of the game.

The cap isnt necessary, doesnt work as it should and in many instances is counter productive.

And that's without even addressing some of the unintended consequences such as the prioritisation of utility over quality

Well no, it was a point on governance which is what I was highlighting in the post you quoted. 

My thoughts on whether salary cap is necessary is outlined in my longer post early in the thread. 

Share this post


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

You don't need to remind me! I also remember Widnes winning the Championship. We should also remember that 2 of those 3 were on their knees a short while later through spending on trying to match Wigan. 

That’s a good point and I think we did need to bring in a cap.

But I still think it’s outlived it’s usefulness and is a bit of a hindrance as it stands.

Share this post


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

That’s a good point and I think we did need to bring in a cap.

But I still think it’s outlived it’s usefulness and is a bit of a hindrance as it stands.

I'm  definitely in favour of some increases to allow for some ambition, yet to be convinced it needs to be abandoned tho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if we scrap the cap, my hope is that Toronto go on the biggest spending spree the game has ever seen.

I then hope this results in a clean sweep of every trophy for season after season.

My third wish is that one of the 'cap is holding us back clubs'  ends up bust trying to keep up.

Share this post


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

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?

That is always difficult to know... in that having such a low salary cap may in itself mean our competition isn't anywhere near the quality of the NRL. Hence moving to a higher standard competition or I should say in this case a far higher standard than the gap may be otherwise without such a very restrictive salary cap.

So they may (or may not) specifically go purely because of salary cap but the knock-on effects of the low salary cap could be such that it is the factor.

Share this post


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

Well if we scrap the cap, my hope is that Toronto go on the biggest spending spree the game has ever seen.

I then hope this results in a clean sweep of every trophy for season after season.

My third wish is that one of the 'cap is holding us back clubs'  ends up bust trying to keep up.

Wow!

Share this post


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

That’s a good point and I think we did need to bring in a cap.

But I still think it’s outlived it’s usefulness and is a bit of a hindrance as it stands.

Going back to the original question,  I think Carney is wrong to talk about cutting the Cap. But irrespective of the Cap, clubs should (by some mechanism) be restricted to spend within their means. 

Let's not forget that all SL clubs get the same TV money. This part is a level saying field.

And within it's means ...  Clubs can get dispensation for academies etc and other progressive spending. But if the organisation that is the SL, and to a similar extent the RLF, is to sustain it's business then it needs to keep it's component clubs solvent.  Likewise the clubs have to spend it's money wisely.

Share this post


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

 

Let's not forget that all SL clubs get the same TV money. This part is a level saying field.

With one notable exception.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Going back to the original question,  I think Carney is wrong to talk about cutting the Cap. But irrespective of the Cap, clubs should (by some mechanism) be restricted to spend within their means. 

Let's not forget that all SL clubs get the same TV money. This part is a level saying field.

And within it's means ...  Clubs can get dispensation for academies etc and other progressive spending. But if the organisation that is the SL, and to a similar extent the RLF, is to sustain it's business then it needs to keep it's component clubs solvent.  Likewise the clubs have to spend it's money wisely.

I think the last line should be quantifiable in that ‘wisely’ on things that benefit the club and the game.  The two are not always carried out and imo future sponsors/ broadcasters would look at that with interest as the whether a) clubs are going to develop and appeal to a growing audience and b) more people are going to play, with a similar knock on effect as ‘a’.

Until Clubs (semi & ft pro) agree on this approach I cannot see the attraction for sponsors/tv to improve on what we get now.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2019 at 02:02, SL17 said:

I thought only the top 25 earners counted on the salary cap?

Don’t know if we have got crossed wires here but I meant the Academy graduates, e.g Makinson, Grace, Lomax etc at Saints, SOL, Powell etc at Wigan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎04‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 16:17, 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.

McManus has already said that Saints are forecasting to make a profit in 2019, and even if they weren't they could easily afford a cap increase. All their directors are multi-millionaires in their own right so they dont rely on just 1 'sugar daddy' to support them. Saints have no external debtors, all debts are owned by the clubs board of directors. McManus may be the chairman but he isn't the main money man at the club, that's Mike Coleman, he put the bulk of the extra money needed to build the new stadium. 

  • Thanks 1

Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


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

McManus has already said that Saints are forecasting to make a profit in 2019, and even if they weren't they could easily afford a cap increase. All their directors are multi-millionaires in their own right so they dont rely on just 1 'sugar daddy' to support them. Saints have no external debtors, all debts are owned by the clubs board of directors. McManus may be the chairman but he isn't the main money man at the club, that's Mike Coleman, he put the bulk of the extra money needed to build the new stadium. 

Given the effort it's taken for McManus and co to make Saints sustainable, why would they want to all of a sudden remove the salary cap and chuck another couple of million in with little increase in revenue to support it?

Like I say, I support raising the cap by restructuring it, whether that's a points based approach or revenue linked to promote sustainable growth and investment in areas outside the first team. We should be looking for it to increase regularly as the game grows.

Removing it completely now risks a tiny number of clubs, who are able/willing to write off millions, blowing it on short term big name signings, skewing the competition further and even worse, having other clubs spending money they don't have chasing them. Been there, done that.

Share this post


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

Given the effort it's taken for McManus and co to make Saints sustainable, why would they want to all of a sudden remove the salary cap and chuck another couple of million in with little increase in revenue to support it?

Like I say, I support raising the cap by restructuring it, whether that's a points based approach or revenue linked to promote sustainable growth and investment in areas outside the first team. We should be looking for it to increase regularly as the game grows.

Removing it completely now risks a tiny number of clubs, who are able/willing to write off millions, blowing it on short term big name signings, skewing the competition further and even worse, having other clubs spending money they don't have chasing them. Been there, done that.

McManus doesn't want it removed. The last time the clubs had a vote he voted to keep it but to see it substantially increased so that SL could start to be more competitive with the NRL and yawnion. He argued at the time that while Saints and a small number of other clubs could have a sustainable business without a cap there were a large number of other clubs that couldn't, so it wasn't on the best interests of SL to remove the cap at this time. He also stated that believed the current cap level was far too low and its low level was holding back the more sustainable clubs. The cap has been I place long enough now for clubs to improve their positions but they couldn't keep it at that low level any longer.

  • Thanks 1

Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long been a fan of the cap but am now starting to question it. To me there were two reasons it was brought in:

1) Make the league more competitive 

2) To save clubs from financial mismanagement

You could argue that the first objective was achieved to some degree but yet we still have only had 4 winners of SL in 20+ years. There have been a few league leaders you might not expect and the general feeling that teams are unbeatable seems to have gone but it's not done enough on this front for me. The best players still want to play for the 'biggest' clubs.

The second objective hasn't really worked either with teams seeming to have financial troubles even with the cap in place. It is impossible to know if more teams would have suffered without the cap though and it must surely help clubs balance the books.

I'm with Dave on this one, a cap which is related to income is probably the best way forward. This would allow Toronto to sign Latrell but would stop Salford trying to sign him and going bankrupt. It may also push teams to increase their revenue streams to increase their cap. At the moment there isn't that level of incentive for the smaller teams as they know they will never be too far away because of TV money, a modest crowd and the cap.

  • Like 1

Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Share this post


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

McManus doesn't want it removed. The last time the clubs had a vote he voted to keep it but to see it substantially increased so that SL could start to be more competitive with the NRL and yawnion. He argued at the time that while Saints and a small number of other clubs could have a sustainable business without a cap there were a large number of other clubs that couldn't, so it wasn't on the best interests of SL to remove the cap at this time. He also stated that believed the current cap level was far too low and its low level was holding back the more sustainable clubs. The cap has been I place long enough now for clubs to improve their positions but they couldn't keep it at that low level any longer.

Yep, although the post of mine you quoted was relating to a point someone made previously about removing the cap altogether. Sounds like we're on the same page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me wants the cap removed and clubs to be able to spend what they want and sink or swim. I fear however that this scenario will lead to only 3/4 clubs actually surviving. You need a large following and a lot of popularity as a sport to survive the sort of market no salary cap will create - I am not convinced RL is on solid enough footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

I've long been a fan of the cap but am now starting to question it. To me there were two reasons it was brought in:

1) Make the league more competitive 

2) To save clubs from financial mismanagement

You could argue that the first objective was achieved to some degree but yet we still have only had 4 winners of SL in 20+ years. There have been a few league leaders you might not expect and the general feeling that teams are unbeatable seems to have gone but it's not done enough on this front for me. The best players still want to play for the 'biggest' clubs.

The second objective hasn't really worked either with teams seeming to have financial troubles even with the cap in place. It is impossible to know if more teams would have suffered without the cap though and it must surely help clubs balance the books.

I'm with Dave on this one, a cap which is related to income is probably the best way forward. This would allow Toronto to sign Latrell but would stop Salford trying to sign him and going bankrupt. It may also push teams to increase their revenue streams to increase their cap. At the moment there isn't that level of incentive for the smaller teams as they know they will never be too far away because of TV money, a modest crowd and the cap.

How do you know they haven't tried to increase their revenue streams but not been able to do that?  How would you suggest that clubs whose management worries (as they evidently do considering that "no away fans" was a concern they had about Toronto being included) about how many "away fans" will come and spend money in their stadium every season go about doing it and would they listen?

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...