McDermott: Give us some salary cap leeway

[TIWIT]

2 hours ago, Kayakman said:

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

i think the jury is still out on that one. They certainly want the expansionist's money, but they don't particularly want him.

RFL/SL have to be about the only sports leagues anywhere that don't actively seek expansion.

[Lowdesert]

4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Mostly we discussed P and R , so pretty much the same as now , back then it was London , the Les Cats who were the focal point 

So, SBW is injured and BMac saying their focus is on him being ready fir the final third.  Some interesting comments in the Yorkshire Post.

[TIWIT]

Just now, Lowdesert said:

So, SBW is injured and BMac saying their focus is on him being ready fir the final third.  Some interesting comments in the Yorkshire Post.

Link please?

[Lowdesert]

2 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

Link please?

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-live-transfer-news-3756591

Sorry, HDM.  Scroll down.  YP was the medals for the 1970 Ashes winners.

[Lowdesert]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The cap doesnt work, hasnt worked and is a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

It doesn't take into account the vast differentials in positions, the issues around exchange rates etc.

FFP is even worse. It entrenches the position of those at the top and stops clubs who have money investing to grow. 

A cap is a one size fits all approach that fits no-one. Its overly restrictive for some, doesnt effect others.

Scrap the cap completely, it's a huge failure. If we replace it with anything replace it with a points system.

Go on then. How would this points system work?

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-live-transfer-news-3756591

Sorry, HDM.  Scroll down.  YP was the medals for the 1970 Ashes winners.

to be fair what he is saying is that you dont rush them back from injury/rush them into the side for the first few weeks to then perhaps have a player who is going to be injured throughout the season and not be fit for the last part which is the final push.. pretty much where all teams should be with their best players.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

13 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

So, SBW is injured and BMac saying their focus is on him being ready fir the final third.  Some interesting comments in the Yorkshire Post.

Not sure he's injured, just not (yet) proved he's fit enough to play a game of RL at the level he's signed up for.

[Mushy]

This is actually the most constructive and well mannered TWP thread I’ve seen. Encourages me to visit these pages more often. 
 

Personally I think this does show poor cap management by TWP,  although most of the cap would have been used up in getting promotion and signing players to multi year contracts so I’ve some sympathy. 

And I do think expansion teams ought to be able to spend a bit more provided they can pay for it. 

But this is tough to square with P&R which of course we have in play for at least this season. 

So I think this year it might have to be ‘those are the rules’ but we should look at changing things for 2021 and beyond. If expansion and growth are part of SL’s vision then letting others spend their money to make it happen should be part of that strategy. 

[RP London]

35 minutes ago, Mushy said:

This is actually the most constructive and well mannered TWP thread I’ve seen. Encourages me to visit these pages more often. 
 

Personally I think this does show poor cap management by TWP,  although most of the cap would have been used up in getting promotion and signing players to multi year contracts so I’ve some sympathy. 

And I do think expansion teams ought to be able to spend a bit more provided they can pay for it. 

But this is tough to square with P&R which of course we have in play for at least this season. 

So I think this year it might have to be ‘those are the rules’ but we should look at changing things for 2021 and beyond. If expansion and growth are part of SL’s vision then letting others spend their money to make it happen should be part of that strategy. 

I would guess one of their problems will be the players they do have signed up that perhaps they would rather not have now they are in the super league. However, to encourage them in the first place it was "pay them a bit more", "give them some job security".. so long "lucrative" contracts which arent easy to get out of without a cap impact.. 

as with so many things i suspect we are debating with only half an eye open to the true facts.. i wonder whether there would be more sympathy if this was the case.. i think perhaps a naivety to the rules around letting people go, how easy it is to get rid of players etc of the higher echelons may see more sympathy. I would like to think SL wouldnt want to cut their noses off to spite their faces (though i have been at this for long enough not to hold my breathe) so if this were the case they may actually make some dispensation which could be done in terms of termination costs etc without it impacting the spirit of the cap too much and something they could make open to everyone without too many teams needing to use it??? 

As always.. just a thought on an interesting speculative possibility.

[Kayakman]

1 hour 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).

We still need those three young players and we want to sign them today!...I've never encountered anything like this...we want to give people work, good work in their field, and the powers that be won't allow it.  Stupid plain and simple.

Plus it puts expansion at risk, if people with this mindset haven't actually killed any further expansion already.  Chicken####### the lot of 'em.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, TIWIT said:

i think the jury is still out on that one. They certainly want the expansionist's money, but they don't particularly want him.

RFL/SL have to be about the only sports leagues anywhere that don't actively seek expansion.

Its pathetic and is now starting to bite...idiots all around.  No vision here, none whatsoever.

[fighting irish]

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Its pathetic and is now starting to bite...idiots all around.  No vision here, none whatsoever.

Relax Kman, it'll all come out in the wash. 

[Kayakman]

Just now, fighting irish said:

Relax Kman, it'll all come out in the wash. 

Just starting to get fired up over here....just turning on the key now.

[redjonn]

4 hours 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.

I am all for expansion. One that has been planned to achieve a strategy and with the appropriate investment (assuming central funds available) or short term rule benefits for targeted clubs/locations to help achieve the goal.

That is as distinct from ad-hoc clubs popping up in geographies that may or may not be part of a planned expansion. Then bending rules to help those clubs with a few exceptions where such as costs are hugely different. 

Personally I am no fan of salary cap but that is the rules. 

Plus I hope Toronto are successful. Never-the-less I still have difficulties with NA clubs joining a UK or Anglo/French  based leagues, but I am intrigued to see how it goes.

Personally If their were  investment funds or special measures to help certain clubs I would focus on London, Other parts of UK and France.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not sure he's injured, just not (yet) proved he's fit enough to play a game of RL at the level he's signed up for.

I agree that’s nearer the mark.  

 

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

You would have a points total each club had.available to spend. Different players would be worth more or less.dependant on whether we wanted to encourage their signing or not. 

So you could start with say a total of 100pts.

Any player you sign from another SL club costs 5 points, 4 pts for any championship player getting an SL debut for you.

Any player you bring through your own academy 3 points. Players still under 21 1pt.

Then you could have discounts for targeted areas (french, NA, irish, welsh players) could be 2pts, this would include players like Mcilorum to encourage them to stay representing 2nd tier nations 

Then you have a premium for players who we dont want too many of. 8pts for queensland cup players for example, 7pts for NRL players.

Then you go out and build your squad from your 100pts. 

So Leeds, bringing through 4 under 21’s into the 1st team squad would have 12 points but Salford, buying 4 of Wires academy just 4.  Also gives Salford a free pick of a Victor Radley or a Jack Wighton.

I know your going to say it doesn’t but that would actually benefit the club without an academy, to buy other clubs academy players.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

I am all for expansion. One that has been planned to achieve a strategy and with the appropriate investment (assuming central funds available) or short term rule benefits for targeted clubs/locations to help achieve the goal.

That is as distinct from ad-hoc clubs popping up in geographies that may or may not be part of a planned expansion. Then bending rules to help those clubs with a few exceptions where such as costs are hugely different. 

Personally I am no fan of salary cap but that is the rules. 

Plus I hope Toronto are successful. Never-the-less I still have difficulties with NA clubs joining a UK or Anglo/French  based leagues, but I am intrigued to see how it goes.

Personally If their were  investment funds or special measures to help certain clubs I would focus on London, Other parts of UK and France.

The problem with the "planned strategy" argument is that it requires centralised thinking and, ultimately, centralised financing. Once you start doing that, you open up the "why isn't that money being spent on the heartlands?" and "what about concentrating on Cumbria?" can of worms all over again. 

It's incredibly hard to have a "planned strategy" when so many people see it as the RFL / SLE taking other people's lunch. Anything the game's governence spends outside the heartlands is money that it isn't being spent in the heartlands and that breeds resentment - even if it's well proven that central funding in the heartlands develops a poor return. The amount of central funding that has been spent on little more than keeping the lights on at clubs that have only gone backwards year after year is a sad indictment of the small-minded thinking in the sport. 

So you're then reliant on private investment and the thing with private investors is that they want to do it on their terms. If David Argyle wants to invest in RL and wants to do it in Toronto, no amount of pointing at a "planned strategy" is going to change that. He either invests on his terms, and the game accomodates it, or he doesn't invest at all. The fact that the RFL thinks that London, Coventry or Toulouse are part of its strategy is irrelevant. 

If the sport and all of its stakeholders (governence, owners, fans and investors) can have a mature conversation where it is decided that central funding and support is given to clubs X, Y and Z because those clubs, towns or cities are judged to be of strategic importance to the sport and because the business case stacks up, then that would be the ideal scenario. But we will never, ever have this conversation because club tribalism will never let us. 

[Kayakman]

11 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I am all for expansion. One that has been planned to achieve a strategy and with the appropriate investment (assuming central funds available) or short term rule benefits for targeted clubs/locations to help achieve the goal.

That is as distinct from ad-hoc clubs popping up in geographies that may or may not be part of a planned expansion. Then bending rules to help those clubs with a few exceptions where such as costs are hugely different. 

Personally I am no fan of salary cap but that is the rules. 

Plus I hope Toronto are successful. Never-the-less I still have difficulties with NA clubs joining a UK or Anglo/French  based leagues, but I am intrigued to see how it goes.

Personally If their were  investment funds or special measures to help certain clubs I would focus on London, Other parts of UK and France.

Thanks for your support...we are fighting hard for everyone in the front lines of NA Rugby League expansion...we've never asked for support from home base but we have called in a fire mission on this one....don't let the front line troops down.

Action NOW!

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I am all for expansion. One that has been planned to achieve a strategy and with the appropriate investment (assuming central funds available) or short term rule benefits for targeted clubs/locations to help achieve the goal.

That is as distinct from ad-hoc clubs popping up in geographies that may or may not be part of a planned expansion. Then bending rules to help those clubs with a few exceptions where such as costs are hugely different. 

Personally I am no fan of salary cap but that is the rules. 

Plus I hope Toronto are successful. Never-the-less I still have difficulties with NA clubs joining a UK or Anglo/French  based leagues, but I am intrigued to see how it goes.

Personally If their were  investment funds or special measures to help certain clubs I would focus on London, Other parts of UK and France.

On your last line, I agree. I'm in the camp of anyone from anywhere should be accommodated, but if we are talking investing money (tv and central funds) then we should be more selective where we spend that. But if others are prepared to take the risk and fund the expansion then I'm 100% on board, that is how I see Toronto, it isn't a natural fit, but I see little to lose if we aren't paying for it.

[Kayakman]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On your last line, I agree. I'm in the camp of anyone from anywhere should be accommodated, but if we are talking investing money (tv and central funds) then we should be more selective where we spend that. But if others are prepared to take the risk and fund the expansion then I'm 100% on board, that is how I see Toronto, it isn't a natural fit, but I see little to lose if we aren't paying for it.

Finally some sense..now what was that that you wanted to know about Paul Rowley?

[Lowdesert]

18 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Sorry, that wasnt clear. U21 and having come through your academy would be 1pt.

Leeds 4 under 21s would be worth 4pts. Salford buying 4 in from Wire would be 20pts. 

Misunderstanding.

What number do we start from?  Clubs already have players or do we give them a tariff retrospectively?

Never going to work this.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

On your last line, I agree. I'm in the camp of anyone from anywhere should be accommodated, but if we are talking investing money (tv and central funds) then we should be more selective where we spend that. But if others are prepared to take the risk and fund the expansion then I'm 100% on board, that is how I see Toronto, it isn't a natural fit, but I see little to lose if we aren't paying for it.

As I say I'm intrigued to how how it works and hope that Toronto are successful.

Never-the-less I still scratch me head as to what we are aiming for if we say continue with the add-hoc approach.  Are we to have have x3 or more NA teams, couple from France plus in the other thread other European clubs Red Star Belgrade along side how many UK clubs. The UK clubs being the ones mainly investing in the community and pipe-line of the game here . 

So nope not anti-expansionist but it all seems ad-hoc and hence not the best chance of success for the sport in this country. Having said that as per your "anyone from anywhere should be accommodated"  providing not  dragging investment from where ever the focus is collectively agreed.

[LeytherRob]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

What do you mean?

The clubs would be given notice to adjust as they were when we implemented the salary cap.  That doesn't seem like an issue at all

If we're going to scrap the cap, just scrap it and make it full survival of the fittest. What's the point of releasing the financial restraints of clubs and replacing it with one that restrains the quality of player but not the finances?

[Marauder]

20 hours ago, TIWIT said:

The game will be lucky to keep the one Argyle the way it acts towards him and his dream.

What about every other directors dreams.

[Marauder]

2 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Thanks for your support...we are fighting hard for everyone in the front lines of NA Rugby League expansion...we've never asked for support from home base but we have called in a fire mission on this one....don't let the front line troops down.

Action NOW!

Check firing, if the cap is lifted then that would have Toronto and other NA clubs buying up the best players, where would that leave the present SL clubs.

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Check firing, if the cap is lifted then that would have Toronto and other NA clubs buying up the best players, where would that leave the present SL clubs.

There currently are no other NA clubs!...where is that smoke?...where is the promised artillery?....fightin in the trenches over here in real time!...need action now...where is the promised assistance?
Quit talking at HQ...action NOW!