SL Clubs tried to reduce the salary cap

[The Daddy]

https://www.totalrl.com/hull-u-turn-settled-salary-cap-dispute/

This type of attitude incences me. One of the problems of rl in the uk is the constant levelling down of the country's flagship competition commercially to what the lower clubs can afford. This is the mentality that will resign uk rl to mediocrity and not being able to compete with RU or the NRL for players. Theyre trying to figure out how to expand while SL clubs want to contract.

Luckily it was voted down and even the GMB were going to get involved.

Instead of trying to find ways to bring more money into the sport the clubs are looking for shortcuts, not good. If clubs can't afford the costs of operating in SL they need to volunteer to step down to the Championship or League One and let clubs like York, TO and Newcastle replace them. 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

https://www.totalrl.com/hull-u-turn-settled-salary-cap-dispute/

This type of attitude incences me. One of the problems of rl in the uk is the constant levelling down of tge country's flagship competition commercially to what the lower clubs can afford. This is the mentality that will resign uk rl to mediocrity and not being able to compete with RU or the NRL for players. Theyre trying to figure out how to expand while SL clubs want to contract.

Luckily it was voted down and even the GMB were going to get involved.

Instead of trying to find ways to bring more money into the sport the clubs are looking for shortcuts, not good. If clubs can't afford the costs of operating in SL they need to volunteer to step down to the Championship or League One and let clubs like York, TO and Newcastle replace them. 

Can York, Toulouse and Newcastle afford a higher Salary Cap than Hull ?

[Hela Wigmen]

Big thanks to Hull FC for this u-turn. Their decision is hopefully seminal in the history of Rugby League. I don’t want to really think about how much of a backwards step it would have been to cut it by £300k. 

This way, clubs can continue making big signings and the reserve grade is saved, as a £300k deduction would have almost certainly killed that off before it got going again. 

[The Daddy]

15 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Big thanks to Hull FC for this u-turn. Their decision is hopefully seminal in the history of Rugby League. I don’t want to really think about how much of a backwards step it would have been to cut it by £300k. 

This way, clubs can continue making big signings and the reserve grade is saved, as a £300k deduction would have almost certainly killed that off before it got going again. 

What's troubling is how close it was to bring voted through. 

Seriously, are all clubs supposed to sink to Salford's pay structure? 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

The thing I always think about the Salary Cap is its a limit, not a requirement. If a club feels that it will have to reduce its wage bills because of the loss of income this year then they are free to do that whatever size the cap is and weigh that decision up against a drop in form in the league. In my eyes keeping a club financially stable is more important than being competitive for a season or two.

All dropping the cap would have done would have been to have stifled the clubs that will be able to continue spending what they are now and potentially seeing a massive loss of talent to the NRL and Union. Obviously there is an argument that dropping the cap would have kept clubs closer together in terms of spending instead of increasing the gap between the top of the table and the bottom even more but I personally don't feel the cap has made the league more closely competitive anyway.

The cap is low compared to the NRL and union anyway and there has always been a drain of talent to those competitions. I'm sure there are clubs that could spend more than the current cap and potentially that would aid in keeping talent in the English game which is one of the most important things in the development of the game here. I think about people like Argyle and Koukash who, had there not been such a small cap in place, would have spent millions on talent and potentially created a couple of world beating teams and if there was no limit, or at least a much higher limit, on spending then surely that would be more attractive to investors. 

Just a few thoughts at two in the morning on the cap. I personally think it stifles the growth of the game in England. 

[Oldbear]

Pretty much all the main NA sports have a salary cap, although quite what it achieves is beyond me. They say it allows the chance for a team to go from last to first, but the reality is that’s it’s how well you draft, and then build a squad that matters. I follow NFL and every year you know there’s a bunch of teams who are destined to be the bottom feeders and a salary cap does nothing to make them more competitive. I’m guessing that the real reason for a salary cap is to stop player wages getting out of hand, but since rugby league players are underpaid compared to their peers in other sports the real challenge should be how can a players lot be improved without sending the whole game to insolvency.

[CanadianRugger]

28 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Pretty much all the main NA sports have a salary cap, although quite what it achieves is beyond me. They say it allows the chance for a team to go from last to first, but the reality is that’s it’s how well you draft, and then build a squad that matters. I follow NFL and every year you know there’s a bunch of teams who are destined to be the bottom feeders and a salary cap does nothing to make them more competitive. I’m guessing that the real reason for a salary cap is to stop player wages getting out of hand, but since rugby league players are underpaid compared to their peers in other sports the real challenge should be how can a players lot be improved without sending the whole game to insolvency.

They also have a minimum and maximum salaries.  The difference between team spending levels is 20-30 milion in the respective big 4 leagues.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

4 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

They also have a minimum and maximum salaries.  The difference between team spending levels is 20-30 milion in the respective big 4 leagues.

Is there a culture in NA sport of players moving to certain teams because of wanting to play for a particular team or are players pretty much happy staying where they are drafted to? I know players don't get transferred round as much as in rugby or soccer. I ask this because it's something I think is a factor as to why a cap has never really helped make the Super League incredibly competitive because players have moved away from, what I'll call, smaller teams to play for big names like Leeds, Saints and Wigan. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

IMHO the SC should be something that teams strive to achieve not a figure that is set to the lowest common denominator.

As a Cas supporter I know of many friends or posters on the Cas Forum that will scream for a SC that stops the likes of Wigan, Saints, Catalans spending more.

But this to me is backward thinking.  I have no issue if the SC is increased year on year as if those clubs that have greater income streams can retain or attract world class players then the game as a whole gets a higher profile and with good governance the money coming into the game should increase.

 

[CanadianRugger]

13 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Is there a culture in NA sport of players moving to certain teams because of wanting to play for a particular team or are players pretty much happy staying where they are drafted to? I know players don't get transferred round as much as in rugby or soccer. I ask this because it's something I think is a factor as to why a cap has never really helped make the Super League incredibly competitive because players have moved away from, what I'll call, smaller teams to play for big names like Leeds, Saints and Wigan. 

There is definite appeal to playing for certain clubs but it isn't as strong as in Europe.  A lot of times it's players wanting to play with specific players.

The New England Patriots were able to bring in the best talent for years because players wanted to play with Tom Brady.  Likewise, in the NHL, many players will take lower pay to play with players like Alex Ovechkin or Sidney Crosby.  

[ojx]

13 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Pretty much all the main NA sports have a salary cap, although quite what it achieves is beyond me. They say it allows the chance for a team to go from last to first, but the reality is that’s it’s how well you draft, and then build a squad that matters. I follow NFL and every year you know there’s a bunch of teams who are destined to be the bottom feeders and a salary cap does nothing to make them more competitive. I’m guessing that the real reason for a salary cap is to stop player wages getting out of hand, but since rugby league players are underpaid compared to their peers in other sports the real challenge should be how can a players lot be improved without sending the whole game to insolvency.

The SC in NA doesn't make the weaker teams competitive enough to win the competition, but it does keep them good enough to not get regularly blown away in games.

[CanadianRugger]

1 minute ago, ojx said:

The SC in NA doesn't make the weaker teams competitive enough to win the competition, but it does keep them good enough to not get regularly blown away in games.

Case in point, the Ottawa Senators. They spent $30 million less than the Leafs and were close to making the playoffs.

[AB90]

For salary cap to properly work it should have a minimum spend requirement. That would solve a lot of our problems if every club had to spend let's say 95% of the cap or be fined for breaching if they fall below (like when going above the cap).

[DimmestStar]

26 minutes ago, AB90 said:

For salary cap to properly work it should have a minimum spend requirement. That would solve a lot of our problems if every club had to spend let's say 95% of the cap or be fined for breaching if they fall below (like when going above the cap).

You would fine clubs for limiting spend to what they can afford?

With SKY payments to clubs being reduced in 2021 by £300,000 your idea of forcing clubs to actually increase spend would most certainly send 7 or 8 of them into administration.

[AB90]

3 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

You would fine clubs for limiting spend to what they can afford?

With SKY payments to clubs being reduced in 2021 by £300,000 your idea of forcing clubs to actually increase spend would most certainly send 7 or 8 of them into administration.

My suggestion was a generalisation regarding salary caps, not specific to SL.

[Chris22]

To reduce the salary cap would seem to create an artificial race to the bottom. It would seek to drag the top clubs down to the level of the lower clubs, rather than the other way around. It may mean more England internationals heading to the NRL and fewer high profile players heading the other way. The consequence would likely see a reduction in the competition's quality and standing. This ultimately would benefit nobody. 

As other have said, the salary cap does not stipulate a minimum spend. If a club chooses to reduce their salary outlay, they can do so without forcing all other clubs, who may not feel likewise, to do the same.

I'm not convinced the salary cap evens the competition anyway. Only four clubs have won the Super League since the salary cap was introduced 24 years ago. For comparison, in the 24-years preceding the salary cap, 13 different sides did.