Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tommygilf

Salary cap!

Salary cap?  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Yay, Nay or something inbetween?

    • Scrap the cap
      21
    • Keep the cap as it is
      9
    • Tinker with it to make it related to individual clubs income
      18
    • Lower it
      0


Recommended Posts

I would like a big increase to bring the cap back into line with what it should be if it had merely risen by inflation and with the hugely increased TV deals. Around £3.5 million would still be less than what it should be and would see the sport being competitive again with its rivals. Those that can spend more should be allowed to and should not be pegged back. If clubs hoarding players is the issue then there are various measures that can be put in place, such as a points system for players based on international caps and club appearances or there can be limits of the amount of players over a certain threshold. I would also like a minimum wage for the top 25 players, its a disgrace what some players get payed for playing in Super League.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its way too low now.  it should be based on what the top 6 clubs can afford.  if clubs get left behind so be it, maybe their place is in the championship.  

based on percentage of turnover is best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it starts by having a proper discussion about what we want the salary cap to be. 

Salary capping will never create a meaningful level of parity in the competition where there is so much disparity between clubs. Smaller clubs will always get less value out of the cap than bigger clubs because when they are competing for a player, they can't compete with the opportunities, facilities, contract terms or other perks that bigger clubs can provide. Playing at Headingley or the KC will always be more attractive than playing at Belle Vue or the AJ Bell so clubs either have to offer to pay more, or offer longer contracts. Either way, they get poorer value out of the current system. 

It also doesn't stop clubs going bust. All the current salary cap does is control one element of cost. It does nothing to control other costs, nor does it help the top line (and you can argue that the current system harms the latter). 

If the purpose of the cap is to improve competitiveness and to promote financial security, it's not going to work - no matter how often you want to point at anomolies like Salford. 

For me, the cap has to be designed to allow clubs that can afford the top talent to attract and retain it, ween clubs off this reliance on a 'sugar daddy' and to encourage clubs to grow off the field by investing in their revenue streams and business model, rather than just focusing on staying up, keeping the lights on and the administrators at bay.

Above all else, I think we need to have a salary cap that allows the current crop of players to earn a fair wage for what they put themselves through. This is a tough sport. We don't fully know what long-term effects playing it at such a high level has on modern professionals in later life (although if someone like Barrie McDermott is still taking pain killers 15 years after retirement, it can't be good), and yet we still pay many of our players less than what they could earn on a construction site, in a call centre and - in some cases - less than what they could earn on minimum wage for what is actually a very insecure job. These players deserve to be paid better, not to have 20 years of real-terms pay cuts imposed on them by the votes of club owners.  

If we have to insist on a salary cap of sorts, it should really be an FFP-style system.

I would have a much higher hard-cap ceiling. Say, to pluck a number out of thin air, £5m for a club's top 25 earners. 

Clubs would then have their limit set at a % of their club turnover. If we say 50% for example (as it was under the old system), a club would only need to turn over £4.5m annually (IIRC, wasn't £4m the target figure under the licencing system?) to hit the current salary cap, and roughly £6m annually to hit the 1999 cap when adjusted for inflation. To put that into context, Warrington's turnover in their last accounts was £7m and profits were £224k.

I would also limit the amount of "directors loans" or similar director investment that counts towards that calculations. This would prevent club owners from what would essentially amount to "financial doping" from sugar daddy owners.

If a club wants to compete with their neighbours, then the onus is on them to generate the revenue to pay for it - to market themselves better, to sell more tickets, attract more sponsors, or whatever it is. This isn't just aimed at people like David Argyle, but at all 'sugar daddy' ownership models. Would, for example, Huddersfield's £80 season tickets really be sustainable if Ken Davy suddenly isn't around? 

I'd then simplify the cap by reducing certain exemptions on the current cap - the 'home grown player' exemption comes to mind. 

 

 

 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

its way too low now.  it should be based on what the top 6 clubs can afford.  if clubs get left behind so be it, maybe their place is in the championship.  

based on percentage of turnover is best.

Then maybe have a league with just 6 clubs that will be good, on the other hand it could open the door for the world league, good luck with that one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to be very careful what they wish for. A similar sport to ours, in the UK show what can happen with a higher cap, or no cap at all. Eye watering amounts are being lost in that sport, but they are richer, have more profile, many more friends in high places, a friendly media etc. and they can't get the numbers to stack up. 

We see some of  our clubs going bust over a million quid, some of their biggest are losing far more than that each year. 

I'm a fan of tweaks, bases on % of turnover. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Tinker?

I'm not sure that fits because I think a relation to revenue would entrench the current  positions of clubs so would not be in favour of that bit

Share this post


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

People need to be very careful what they wish for. A similar sport to ours, in the UK show what can happen with a higher cap, or no cap at all. Eye watering amounts are being lost in that sport, but they are richer, have more profile, many more friends in high places, a friendly media etc. and they can't get the numbers to stack up. 

We see some of  our clubs going bust over a million quid, some of their biggest are losing far more than that each year. 

I'm a fan of tweaks, bases on % of turnover. 

And growing much quicker than we have 

Share this post


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

Then maybe have a league with just 6 clubs that will be good, on the other hand it could open the door for the world league, good luck with that one.

 

Koucash wanted it raised when he was at Salford 

Maybe it's keeping sugar daddies away 

Though the lack of genuine marquee players suggests the big clubs don't want to spend more 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was always in favour of a cap but I'm sick of hearing the whinging so I say scrap it and let the top clubs have an arms race to see who can go bust first. When they go pop, make them restart in the bottom tier and replace with the next best Championship club.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

And growing much quicker than we have 

That soundbite won't keep the clubs alive when they lose millions each year. 

The other sport with its advantages, profile, rich backers, friends etc. are losing millions and millions each. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Only seven more sleeps......

Till you start counting Toronto crowds again ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the pre cap days was that the other clubs kept trying to compete with Wigan and to an extent Leeds when they just didn't have the resources. In Scottish football the clubs basically just left Celtic and Rangers to get on with their private argument and concentrated on staying in business. If the other RL clubs had followed the same path we might not be debating this at all.

Edited by Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

If we have to insist on a salary cap of sorts, it should really be an FFP-style system.

I would have a much higher hard-cap ceiling. Say, to pluck a number out of thin air, £5m for a club's top 25 earners. 

Clubs would then have their limit set at a % of their club turnover. If we say 50% for example (as it was under the old system), a club would only need to turn over £4.5m annually (IIRC, wasn't £4m the target figure under the licencing system?) to hit the current salary cap, and roughly £6m annually to hit the 1999 cap when adjusted for inflation. To put that into context, Warrington's turnover in their last accounts was £7m and profits were £224k.

I would also limit the amount of "directors loans" or similar director investment that counts towards that calculations. This would prevent club owners from what would essentially amount to "financial doping" from sugar daddy owners.

If a club wants to compete with their neighbours, then the onus is on them to generate the revenue to pay for it - to market themselves better, to sell more tickets, attract more sponsors, or whatever it is. This isn't just aimed at people like David Argyle, but at all 'sugar daddy' ownership models. Would, for example, Huddersfield's £80 season tickets really be sustainable if Ken Davy suddenly isn't around? 

I agree with the sentiment of limiting directors loans but in reality the could be a nightmare to police. At Toronto for example, Argyle could put forward his directors loan, then use his sponsorship through Rugby Strength to massively invest in the club again - this happens in football at Man City and in Union at Exeter for example. 

I agree with the cap being relative to turnover though with a limit to protect the integrity of the competition and player hoarding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

The problem with the pre cap days was that the other clubs kept trying to compete with Wigan and to an extent Leeds when they just didn't have the resources. In Scottish football the clubs basically just left Celtic and Rangers to get on with their private argument and concentrated on staying in business. If the other RL clubs had followed the same path we might not be debating this at all.

Would it be so bad if the top.6 clubs in super league went down the Scottish soccer route?

it Depends if your happy with the.quality of.the.games as it is now or want a better standard 

 

Share this post


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

That soundbite won't keep the clubs alive when they lose millions each year. 

The other sport with its advantages, profile, rich backers, friends etc. are losing millions and millions each. 

It's not a soundbite. It's a fact. They are growing much faster than we are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

The problem with the pre cap days was that the other clubs kept trying to compete with Wigan and to an extent Leeds when they just didn't have the resources. In Scottish football the clubs basically just left Celtic and Rangers to get on with their private argument and concentrated on staying in business. If the other RL clubs had followed the same path we might not be debating this at all.

The problem with that comparison though is that Celtic and Rangers are astronomically bigger than most of their competitors, they are Premier League sides playing in a "competition" with sides that are English 3rd division at best by comparison in terms of size. The disparity isn't that big in SL, nor is it between 2 clubs and the rest. Excluding Toronto, we have 6 sides that are consistently able to compete for players on a relatively equal level, 3 more in Huddersfield, Hull KR and Cas who can pay to cap but are limited by other factors. Then we have Salford who in many respects were a smaller version of Huddersfield under Marwan and have since adopted a new model that means they make do, and Wakefield, who have to spend wisely and are crippled by poor facilities.

Something has to be driving the sport forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...