Salary cap!

[Red Willow]

How about link the cap to the TV deal, if each club receives £1m then the cap will be £2m.

We have to face facts the RL is poor in sporting terms compared to others. You can't compare it to North American sports or to RL in Oz.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Red Willow said:

How about link the cap to the TV deal, if each club receives £1m then the cap will be £2m.

We have to face facts the RL is poor in sporting terms compared to others. You can't compare it to North American sports or to RL in Oz.

I like the idea, but the cap hasn't increased with TV increases. The last TV deal ensured every club got enough to spend the cap, 1.8 million, and clubs were still not spending the cap. 

[Oxford]

Missed a trick there, should've included P&R and expansion.

[aj1908]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I like the idea, but the cap hasn't increased with TV increases. The last TV deal ensured every club got enough to spend the cap, 1.8 million, and clubs were still not spending the cap. 

Some real basket cases in super league if they can't manage that

I think all.nrl clubs do or some are under saving money for a good player 

But our clubs get 30 percent more than the salary cap so they have little excuse not to spend full.cap 

And still.many clubs are useless.

[whatmichaelsays]

46 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I like the idea, but the cap hasn't increased with TV increases. The last TV deal ensured every club got enough to spend the cap, 1.8 million, and clubs were still not spending the cap. 

I think this is what is particuarly frustrating. 

The sport set a cap level in 1998 that remained largely stagnent until 2017-18(?). However, in that time, crowds grew and TV revenue grew. So where has the money gone? Clubs were still having financial issues despite more money coming in at the top end, and one of their biggest costs reducing in real terms year after year. 

In truth, the club owners were voting to impose pay cuts on players for no other reason than to reduce their own personal liabilities. The sport was literally taking money from TV companies that was supposed to improve the quality of the product that we provide to those TV companies, and was putting it in the back pockets of club owners and using it to pay down historical debts. And we're telling Sky that we want even more of that money from them? What added value are we offering in return?

Now, the owners own the clubs and it is there perrogative to run them how they like, but it is only right to start asking where the return on all of that central funding investment is. 

If we still want to insist that we need a salary cap, take the control of that limit away from the clubs and put an independent body in place to determine the level- with a players union / representation a part of that body. 

[CanadianRugger]

2 hours ago, aj1908 said:

@CanadianRuggercan you post that NHL thing again showing the disparity

For what teams actually spend, you can find that information here:

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/cap/

Lowest spent roughly $66 million with $14 million in cap space remaining.  The highest spent $81 million with $150,000 in cap space remaining.  All numbers are public and verifiable.

As for historic trends, this is growth of the Salary cap since it was instituted in 2005-2006:

 

[aj1908]

4 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

For what teams actually spend, you can find that information here:

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/cap/

Lowest spent roughly $66 million with $14 million in cap space remaining.  The highest spent $81 million with $150,000 in cap space remaining.  All numbers are public and verifiable.

As for historic trends, this is growth of the Salary cap since it was instituted in 2005-2006:

 

That's 10 percent growth a year wow (average) or just under 

[aj1908]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

By what measure isnt it true.

Union crowds aren't growing 

Neither is the popularity or other stuff 

I hope they keep.spending that kind of money so more clubs can suffer financially tbh 

They are trying to keep up with wages in France.

Their finances are ridiculous.  Not sustainable 

[aj1908]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

depends what stage they think they are at.

I imagine 10 years ago people would be on here saying that the financials of premier league football clubs were 'absolute basket cases' and Man City's business plan was stupid, yet here they are, 11 years of year on year growth, and a profit making business worth about 3 times what they have invested in it.

Soccer is the national sport they can get away with it.  Even then you have clubs like Bolton.

 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, aj1908 said:

Union crowds aren't growing 

Neither is the popularity or other stuff 

I hope they keep.spending that kind of money so more clubs can suffer financially tbh 

They are trying to keep up with wages in France.

Their finances are ridiculous.  Not sustainable 

 

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

By what measure isnt it true.

If you fellas want to have this debate, in which there is much merit in my opinion, can you have it in the CCF please 

[CanadianRugger]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

If you fellas want to have this debate, in which there is much merit in my opinion, can you have it in the CCF please 

Unfortunately, some of us have been banned from cross-code for criticizing the Rugby League World Cup, for legitimate reasons might I add.

Something something.... Rules for thee but not for me 

[John Drake]

Locked.