McDermott: Give us some salary cap leeway

[aj1908]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm just wondering who the previous incarnation was.

am i allowed to say?

can i fax it to you.

 

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

He must be an Ottawa fan. 

toronto arrows more like.

[whatmichaelsays]

17 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Time to move up to the big time.

Think about it:

1. An owner wants to spend money on the sport but can't.

2. A team wants to employ RL players (but can't due to antiquated  rules) but is, instead,  being forced to employ Union people.

3.  A club wants to promote expansion of a sport into a new market but is being purposefully held back.

This is ridiculous.

The cap at the very least needs to be pegged to inflation. It's ridiculous that we've allowed clubs to impose real-terms pay cuts on the players for the best part of two decades. The 1999 cap should be over £3m today, not the £2.2m-ish that it was only very recently increased to. 

I've said before that personally, I'd replace the cap with an FFP-style system that is linked to a club's financial performance. We used to have the 50% of turnover rule and in truth, I'd have something similar in place:

• Introduce a 'soft' cap that is linked to the club's own turnover.
• Limit the way in which directors loans / injections are counted towards that figure, encouraging clubs to develop their business and income streams, rather than rely on owner benevolence. If a club wants to compete with their neighbours for playing talent, they need to grow the business to be able to pay for it.
• Either remove or introduce a much higher upper celing.  

In truth, that sort of system probably wouldn't benefit Toronto, but it would be a cap system that encourages clubs to develop themselves off the field, rather than just on it, and it should allow the players to reap the benefits of any growth. 

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

Why doesn't doesn't Rugby League want to break into the biggest sports market in the world with a self funding team?

i can see why this could be done.

but it shouldnt be done because toronto worked out theyve overspent and need help out of bad management.

this is all their fault if they have a bad squad.  

 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

This thread has caused the biggest party in Leigh since they opened a Greggs there.

I would laugh , but unfortunately this post is too childish , just grow up a bit , then you can contribute 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

Why doesn't doesn't Rugby League want to break into the biggest sports market in the world with a self funding team?

Possibly because that might mean losing control , something nodoby likes 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The cap at the very least needs to be pegged to inflation. It's ridiculous that we've allowed clubs to impose real-terms pay cuts on the players for the best part of two decades. The 1999 cap should be over £3m today, not the £2.2m-ish that it was only very recently increased to. 

I've said before that personally, I'd replace the cap with an FFP-style system that is linked to a club's financial performance. We used to have the 50% of turnover rule and in truth, I'd have something similar in place:

• Introduce a 'soft' cap that is linked to the club's own turnover.
• Limit the way in which directors loans / injections are counted towards that figure, encouraging clubs to develop their business and income streams, rather than rely on owner benevolence. If a club wants to compete with their neighbours for playing talent, they need to grow the business to be able to pay for it.
• Either remove or introduce a much higher upper celing.  

In truth, that sort of system probably wouldn't benefit Toronto, but it would be a cap system that encourages clubs to develop themselves off the field, rather than just on it, and it should allow the players to reap the benefits of any growth. 

I agree with much of this, I prefer a version of the 50% system, but as we can see, that would still draw exactly the same criticism.

[aj1908]

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31622

 

im not saying this should happen in league but look how AFL advances its money to clubs

it gives its expansion clubs a massive leg up.

they really back their sport to the max.

this was proposed by the nrl and quickly shut down by the clubs.

in AFL the top clubs gets more than double what the bottom club gets in terms of grant

 

[Kayakman]

11 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31622

 

im not saying this should happen in league but look how AFL advances its money to clubs

it gives its expansion clubs a massive leg up.

they really back their sport to the max.

this was proposed by the nrl and quickly shut down by the clubs.

in AFL the top clubs gets more than double what the bottom club gets in terms of grant

 

I can't believe the lack of support for expansion teams in RL; do we want expansion or not?

Action is currently required; do we act or remain passive and kneel.

You might accept the gruel they have been feeding but where is the meat?

[Damien]

47 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

am i allowed to say?

can i fax it to you.

 

Of course send away.

[RP London]

lets be fair McDermott was calling for the same at london due to the expense of encouraging players to move to London.. (it costs more to live there and you have to effectively offer more to attract people away from the comforts of their home).

I really dont see too much of an issue... but would have to carry timeframes etc. 

If we want expansion to succeed there needs to be some sort of understanding that to get people to move to what could be short term clubs they may need to spend more to get the same. If they are in areas where living is more expensive then we do have to take that into account as well (before anyone says it i know they are not living in toronto full time)... In the end IMHO expansion teams need success and if we have to give dispensation for clubs to be able to do that in the short term then we can build something quite good.. 

IF, for example, Branson had been allowed to spend a little more in the late 90s in London and they had, maybe, won a couple of super league titles London COULD be a very different place right now in terms of Rugby League (knowing what was happening in junior development and amateur development in the early and mid 2000s i would say that with a really successful senior team it could have really pushed on.. some more money and something to aspire too like that could have really made a difference instead of pulling the money and dropping the development officers!) 

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm ok with some form of dispensation as per my previous post, the cap rules have been designed for the clubs in the UK and France and may not necessarily suit for expansion clubs like TWP, certainly in the short term.

However, you are right that on the face of it the management deserve criticism for the squad they have put together (so far). 

Looking at last year, the 12 SL clubs used:

An average of 32 players each.

Lowest was saints with 28. Highest was Hull KR with 37.

If you adjusted these numbers to remove any players who had played fewer than 5 games (fringe players being given experience - not perfect but probably removes a number of players who didn't 'need' to be used last year):

Average of 27 players per club used.

Lowest was Saints/Wire with 24, highest was Hull KR with 31.

This suggests that the bare minimum you could possibly use throughout the year is around 24, but likely to be the adjusted average of 27.

Bearing in mind the salary cap is for your first 25 players, for TWP to not even get a 25 man squad together is poor. If they did that, surely a couple more loans would have been possible, or even signing a couple of young lads and playing them in the UK via DR would have been possible. It seems odd that they haven't done this. 

It will be interesting to watch what comes of this, but it doesn't look overly smart by them right now.

This is a great analysis of the situation and I agree that Toronto should be further ahead than they are now in depth of quality in the squad. I hope it doesn't come back to bite them too hard.

[aj1908]

42 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I can't believe the lack of support for expansion teams in RL; do we want expansion or not?

Action is currently required; do we act or remain passive and kneel.

You might accept the gruel they have been feeding but where is the meat?

its not just super league.  nrl considers brisbane as its next expansion spot lol

i thought you would be interested in that table.  

AFL has invested over 500 million into its two newest teams that.

if you swapped sydney for M62 you would have the nrl pretty much except brisbane is also big.

sydney clubs control the game

[LR23]

36 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I can't believe the lack of support for expansion teams in RL; do we want expansion or not?

Action is currently required; do we act or remain passive and kneel.

You might accept the gruel they have been feeding but where is the meat?

On the first point I sympathise - this one foot in and one foot out approach by those in charge of the sport is doing nobody any favours. However taking some sort of action now two weeks before the season starts will make the sport look amateur and just cause further problems.

Toronto management have got to hold their hands up and take responsibility for this salary cap mess though. Same goes for the Chase visa issues. It is not a good look however McDermott and co spin it.

[whatmichaelsays]

58 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree with much of this, I prefer a version of the 50% system, but as we can see, that would still draw exactly the same criticism.

I think the cap also needs to reflect local realities as well. The average rent in Castleford is around £500 a month. The average rent in Ealing is more than that per week. Yet London Broncos only get a 10% London Weighting allowance? 

We're deliberately setting up expansion clubs to fail because the sport happens to be centered around some of the cheapest parts of the country from a living costs perspective. For the club owners who vote for this system, that suits them. Every expansion club is more competition that they don't want. 

The currently salary cap serves no actual purpose other than to limit the cost base to a small number of people - people who are only voting to reduce the value of their "directors loans" each year and forcing the players bear the cost of that. That's not how a sport should be working. 

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the cap also needs to reflect local realities as well. The average rent in Castleford is around £500 a month. The average rent in Ealing is more than that per week. Yet London Broncos only get a 10% London Weighting allowance? 

We're deliberately setting up expansion clubs to fail because the sport happens to be centered around some of the cheapest parts of the country from a living costs perspective. For the club owners who vote for this system, that suits them. Every expansion club is more competition that they don't want. 

The currently salary cap serves no actual purpose other than to limit the cost base to a small number of people - people who are only voting to reduce the value of their "directors loans" each year and forcing the players bear the cost of that. That's not how a sport should be working. 

I very much agree with the first two parts of this.

I started working for a multinational last year and they have a great system in place where 'fair value' for any recruiting or remuneration decision is based on the value of the role in key markets which is then increased (or decreased) by standard of living costs... I.e. the same cloud tech role in India or San Francisco will be in part based on the cost of living in these locations. 

I am sure all businesses do this but what I like about my employer is they are full transparent about the process and the formula so if people disagree then they have to provide a really solid argument.  This type of approach could easily be applied across Super League territories.

[Kayakman]

31 minutes ago, LR23 said:

On the first point I sympathise - this one foot in and one foot out approach by those in charge of the sport is doing nobody any favours. However taking some sort of action now two weeks before the season starts will make the sport look amateur and just cause further problems.

Toronto management have got to hold their hands up and take responsibility for this salary cap mess though. Same goes for the Chase visa issues. It is not a good look however McDermott and co spin it.

We are just asking for a little of bit of leeway since its a new thing and we are growing...just a wee bit of help is all, ain't gonna cost ya a penny...bad enough that you stole our Central Funding...give us that value to add on to our cap and all is well...you can even keep the money you stole.

Now ante up.

[LR23]

10 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

We are just asking for a little of bit of leeway since its a new thing and we are growing...just a wee bit of help is all, ain't gonna cost ya a penny...bad enough that you stole our Central Funding...give us that value to add on to our cap and all is well...you can even keep the money you stole.

Now ante up.

It wasn't me personally! I sympathise on the central funding point to a certain extent (I'm not getting into that debate though) but that still isn't a valid excuse for mismanaging your salary cap spending. 

Instead of signing SBW you could have signed three young talented players on £50,000 a year to fill out your squad. I'm sure loads of young players would love a couple of years in Toronto. The choice was yours. But Noble's eyes have always been bigger than his belly (sorry for the very English phrase).

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the cap also needs to reflect local realities as well. The average rent in Castleford is around £500 a month. The average rent in Ealing is more than that per week. Yet London Broncos only get a 10% London Weighting allowance? 

We're deliberately setting up expansion clubs to fail because the sport happens to be centered around some of the cheapest parts of the country from a living costs perspective. For the club owners who vote for this system, that suits them. Every expansion club is more competition that they don't want. 

The currently salary cap serves no actual purpose other than to limit the cost base to a small number of people - people who are only voting to reduce the value of their "directors loans" each year and forcing the players bear the cost of that. That's not how a sport should be working. 

Interested to know what value has been awarded to TWP - the SC regulation on the RFL site is still last year's just yet, with no reference to TWP. 

It does also state that for Catalans their value will be determined by the SLE Board and justified in advance of the season. I wonder if this is the discussion that is happening at the moment for TWP. Them making a case for weighting.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, LR23 said:

It wasn't me personally! I sympathise on the central funding point to a certain extent (I'm not getting into that debate though) but that still isn't a valid excuse for mismanaging your salary cap spending. 

Instead of signing SBW you could have signed three young talented players on £50,000 a year to fill out your squad. I'm sure loads of young players would love a couple of years in Toronto. The choice was yours. But Noble's eyes have always been bigger than his belly (sorry for the very English phrase).

I don't think the SBW signing is the issue in that squad. I think it is easy to justify him taking up £175k cap space.

[LR23]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the SBW signing is the issue in that squad. I think it is easy to justify him taking up £175k cap space.

I agree that the stranger decisions were made earlier on but when the SBW signing was made then knew that they were approaching the cap and had a small squad - they made a choice to carry on with signing one big name rather than filling out the squad. Common sense would say sign the youngsters first and then pursue dispensation for the big name next.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, LR23 said:

It wasn't me personally! I sympathise on the central funding point to a certain extent (I'm not getting into that debate though) but that still isn't a valid excuse for mismanaging your salary cap spending. 

Instead of signing SBW you could have signed three young talented players on £50,000 a year to fill out your squad. I'm sure loads of young players would love a couple of years in Toronto. The choice was yours. But Noble's eyes have always been bigger than his belly (sorry for the very English phrase).

Three young lads of £50k a year each wouldn’t have attracted 0.001% of the interest that SBW’s signing has, and that was clearly the reason for signing him. 

[LR23]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Interested to know what value has been awarded to TWP - the SC regulation on the RFL site is still last year's just yet, with no reference to TWP. 

It does also state that for Catalans their value will be determined by the SLE Board and justified in advance of the season. I wonder if this is the discussion that is happening at the moment for TWP. Them making a case for weighting.

Genuine question and not TWP bashing - how do you think they would work the weighting with the players seeming to be based predominantly in the UK or at the very least part here and part in Toronto? 

[LR23]

Just now, Eddie said:

Three young lads of £50k a year each wouldn’t have attracted 0.001% of the interest that SBW’s signing has, and that was clearly the reason for signing him. 

Completely understand that but it was still a choice so my support for salary cap dispensation two weeks out from the season start is limited. It is bad cap management plain and simple.

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, LR23 said:

Genuine question and not TWP bashing - how do you think they would work the weighting with the players seeming to be based predominantly in the UK or at the very least part here and part in Toronto? 

That is one of the reasons I am interested. I am sure there is a case for time spent in Canada away from 'home' to provide a weighting.