Salary Cap?

[The Frying Scotsman]

Tonight's game - Leeds v Wigan was judging by the poll on here, and most of the comments on social media, a foregone conclusion.

Any comments from Leeds fans I read were centred around the fact that they had no bench at all due to injuries, so could not reasonably expect to win.

This is 3 games into the season. 

Game 3.

Surely at such an early stage, teams should still be competitive even with injuries? If we are seeing foregone conclusions (involving Leeds, playing at home) 3 weeks into a season, it's because the Cap is too low?

Teams should surely not be forced to play a bunch of kids (or whatever) in order to field a team at this incredibly early stage. Leeds played well defensively and avoided a blowout, but surely the system is flawed if they can't put a competitive team out despite being one of the biggest clubs?

I think we need to let our capable clubs spend at least enough to put a proper team out early season. If this was in late September, then we would expect teams to be cut up by injuries, but the product is being adversely affected IMO by clubs fielding uncompetitive sides in Rounds 2 and 3.  I know this doesn't help the likes off Wakefield or Hull KR, but we shouldn't be in a race to the bottom just because these clubs can't even remotely keep up.

For me, this detracts a lot from the competition. Wigan had 2 aging second rows in the backline and still cruised it.

Doesn't do a lot for the credibility of the League when squads have such little depth.

[Mr Frisky]

6 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Tonight's game - Leeds v Wigan was judging by the poll on here, and most of the comments on social media, a foregone conclusion.

Any comments from Leeds fans I read were centred around the fact that they had no bench at all due to injuries, so could not reasonably expect to win.

This is 3 games into the season. 

Game 3.

Surely at such an early stage, teams should still be competitive even with injuries? If we are seeing foregone conclusions (involving Leeds, playing at home) 3 weeks into a season, it's because the Cap is too low?

Teams should surely not be forced to play a bunch of kids (or whatever) in order to field a team at this incredibly early stage. Leeds played well defensively and avoided a blowout, but surely the system is flawed if they can't put a competitive team out despite being one of the biggest clubs?

I think we need to let our capable clubs spend at least enough to put a proper team out early season. If this was in late September, then we would expect teams to be cut up by injuries, but the product is being adversely affected IMO by clubs fielding uncompetitive sides in Rounds 2 and 3.  I know this doesn't help the likes off Wakefield or Hull KR, but we shouldn't be in a race to the bottom just because these clubs can't even remotely keep up.

For me, this detracts a lot from the competition. Wigan had 2 aging second rows in the backline and still cruised it.

Doesn't do a lot for the credibility of the League when squads have such little depth.

Its not often you post a negative comment about RL lad......

[The Frying Scotsman]

3 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

Its not often you post a negative comment about RL lad......

Great contribution to the discussion. Adds a lot, son.

I don't know who you support, but I am guessing it is somebody fairly mediocre?

[Mr Frisky]

1 minute ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Great contribution to the discussion. Adds a lot, son.

I don't know who you support, but I am guessing it is somebody fairly mediocre?

RL fan first and foremost, so your ongoing negative comments stand out a mile - To answer your silly comment, I love watching the amateur games (as well as my club)- but It seems like you will scoff at that kid.

[The Frying Scotsman]

Just now, Mr Frisky said:

RL fan first and foremost, so your ongoing negative comments stand out a mile - To answer your silly comment, I love watching the amateur games (as well as my club)- but It seems like you will scoff at that kid.

I wouldn't scoff at all, wee man. 

I am clearly a fan too, as I was all over this game, despite not being a supporter of either team. Maybe not everyone meets your narrow definition of "fan" mind you. 

However my post was basically targeting a way of potentially improving the game's flagship competition. Do you really think that big clubs (like Leeds) being put in a situation like this will help to grow the game? Will new fans be pulled in watching tonight's game?(as I say... No disrespect to Leeds - they did well).  Will young people start watching SuperLeague if the 'star quality' is a bench full of academy kids? Or would they be more inclined to watch if we had 4 or 5 more big, fast Polynesian imports on the pitch? (for example)

I don't know the answer 100% but if you think the current recipe is working, fair play to you. I just don't think it is, and it makes the game a tough sell.  

 

[Wholly Trinity]

I would agree that the salary cap is too low to attract a sufficient number of high quality players to SL. The going rate is set by the NRL and the other code. 

However, the solution isn't to just increase the cap. The problem is more complex in that there isn't enough money in the sport to compete in the marketplace. Work out how to get more money in and the cap takes care of itself. 

Attract a more diverse fan base and increase commercial revenue. Surely having more world class players would do that? You could just increase or abolish the cap, but then there'd only be a handful of competitive teams, which means that you either have an SL of 6 teams or the top teams would be getting cricket scores every other week. Neither is conducive to increasing revenue. 

It's a bit of a cyclic argument, but the reality is you have to find a way to grow the sport as a whole. So far, we've failed.

[The Frying Scotsman]

2 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

The going rate is set by the NRL and the other code. 

However, the solution isn't to just increase the cap. 

Attract a more diverse fan base and increase commercial revenue. Surely having more world class players would do that? You could just increase or abolish the cap, but then there'd only be a handful of competitive teams, which means that you either have an SL of 6 teams or the top teams would be getting cricket scores every other week.

Why not?

There were cricket scores most weeks last season anyway though.

Surely our big, well run clubs like Leeds should be able to field a team of proven professionals and not rely on a bunch of kids off the bench by round 3? 

Otherwise it is a race to the bottom, with no incentive for the Wakefields of the world to get their house in order.

I actually find the League difficult to sell to people, in its current state. So attracting "a more diverse fan base" to me is not going to happen with the current impoverished looking teams. 

[M j M]

If the salary cap was higher Leeds would spend more per player, the squad is large enough for usual circumstances.

BTW I've given the OP a bit of time but after 100+ posts of this quality I think it's time for the ignore list.

[Eddie]

Agreed the cap is too low, and is holding the more progressive clubs back. Another advantage would be that wealthy backers may be more inclined to invest if the cap was higher. 

[Spidey]

The salary cap is probably too low for Leeds but probably too high for Wakefield - isn't that the point?

[Eddie]

48 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The salary cap is probably too low for Leeds but probably too high for Wakefield - isn't that the point?

Yes, it drags Leeds down towards Wakefield’s level. 

[Spidey]

Just now, Eddie said:

Yes, it drags Leeds down towards Wakefield’s level. 

That's the level the sport as a whole is at.  Leeds have a lot of mechanisms to spend more than the cap anyway, isn't that enough?

[Eddie]

20 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That's the level the sport as a whole is at.  Leeds have a lot of mechanisms to spend more than the cap anyway, isn't that enough?

The sport as a whole doesn’t need to be at that level though, if the big clubs were allowed to spend more SL wouldn’t lose players as often, and as a knock on neither would the smaller clubs. 

[Man of Kent]

Not sure last night was down to the salary cap. Leeds were without Luke Gale, Rob Lui, Richie Myler and Callum McLelland. That’s a decent wedge.

What disappointed me about last night  was Leeds’ attacking ineptitude. For a top Super League side to be literally clueless was a tad embarrassing IMO. 

 

[M j M]

13 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Not sure last night was down to the salary cap. Leeds were without Luke Gale, Rob Lui, Richie Myler and Callum McLelland. That’s a decent wedge.

What disappointed me about last night  was Leeds’ attacking ineptitude. For a top Super League side to be literally clueless was a tad embarrassing IMO. 

 

You don't think the first paragraph of your post has anything to do with the second? Especially when you add in the first choice full back, the league's biggest strike centre and the back up back up half back.

[Hela Wigmen]

Even with a bigger salary cap, Leeds would probably still run with a similar sized squad to what they have now (32). I imagine their squad may look slightly different in terms of personnel but I highly doubt an increase would see a huge jump in numbers to their playing squad. Perhaps they’d have a few more players if there was a reserve league, for examples however, I couldn’t see them adding 5-6 first team players to their squad if there was such a rise. 

[Man of Kent]

28 minutes ago, M j M said:

You don't think the first paragraph of your post has anything to do with the second? Especially when you add in the first choice full back, the league's biggest strike centre and the back up back up half back.

I still think a major Super League club should know how to ask questions of defences in good ball. They looked like a pub side.

[hindle xiii]

I thought the point is as well Wigan, Leeds and St Helens can win the trophies consistently with this lower cap?

For example, why pay £150 for a product when you can get the same for £100?

Defeatist, I know, but y'know.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, hindle xiii said:

I thought the point is as well Wigan, Leeds and St Helens can win the trophies consistently with this lower cap?

For example, why pay £150 for a product when you can get the same for £100?

Defeatist, I know, but y'know.

Indeed, they've managed to make the system work for them, and work well, particularly on field - meaning the mechanism to balance the comp has resulted in even more domination. Off field though, in terms of stagnating crowds, revenues, reach, etc. these clubs and consequently the sport have suffered from the stagnant cap for around 15 years.

We've dug ourselves into a rut - the smaller teams are terrified of a cap increase leaving them cast adrift, the big teams keep winning anyway so why change, the middling teams with ambition and backing aren't numerous enough to force through a big enough change to make a difference (£100k here or there and a marquee really isn't enough).

The lower cap is pointless imo. Wakey, Hull KR etc aren't going to win the league any time soon if you made it even lower. If they're going to be paid peanuts anyway, most players would like to win something in their career which draws them to the bigger teams anyway.

I think the major element we are missing is a way for the likes of Warrington, Hull FC, Catalans, Huddersfield, even Salford under Koukash, to be able to invest to overcome the in built advantages of the big 3. It recognises that whilst the cap is the same, the value of each club's £ is not, and would allow significant financial investment into the sport.

[Just Browny]

I think I'd be more interested in asking why there are so many injuries already.

[Davo5]

9 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Tonight's game - Leeds v Wigan was judging by the poll on here, and most of the comments on social media, a foregone conclusion.

Any comments from Leeds fans I read were centred around the fact that they had no bench at all due to injuries, so could not reasonably expect to win.

This is 3 games into the season. 

Game 3.

Surely at such an early stage, teams should still be competitive even with injuries? If we are seeing foregone conclusions (involving Leeds, playing at home) 3 weeks into a season, it's because the Cap is too low?

Teams should surely not be forced to play a bunch of kids (or whatever) in order to field a team at this incredibly early stage. Leeds played well defensively and avoided a blowout, but surely the system is flawed if they can't put a competitive team out despite being one of the biggest clubs?

I think we need to let our capable clubs spend at least enough to put a proper team out early season. If this was in late September, then we would expect teams to be cut up by injuries, but the product is being adversely affected IMO by clubs fielding uncompetitive sides in Rounds 2 and 3.  I know this doesn't help the likes off Wakefield or Hull KR, but we shouldn't be in a race to the bottom just because these clubs can't even remotely keep up.

For me, this detracts a lot from the competition. Wigan had 2 aging second rows in the backline and still cruised it.

Doesn't do a lot for the credibility of the League when squads have such little depth.

I thought one of the positives of last season was the amount of young British talent that got their chances in first grade and didn’t look out of place.

 

[meast]

22 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think I'd be more interested in asking why there are so many injuries already.

That's easy to answer, just ask any S+C coach or physio.

The majority of injuries are based on collision, muscle tears based on the wrestling techniques.

Basically, what we have now is a game played by 26 powerfully built wrecking balls, smashing into each other, I can't remember who it was that told me, but each collison in RL is akin to a head on car crash at 30 mph in terms of damage to the body.

The game is now solely built upon and played by power and strength not skill and wit.

[meast]

13 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

I thought one of the positives of last season was the amount of young British talent that got their chances in first grade and didn’t look out of place.

 

And ultimately that's where the game should be headed, young English players who can become heroes to younger kids, it helps the national team, it can only help bring the positive things out in the game, nothing against the overseas players at all, they should always be welcomed, but far too often these players are no better than some of the young local talent the clubs bring through.

[Davo5]

3 minutes ago, meast said:

And ultimately that's where the game should be headed, young English players who can become heroes to younger kids, it helps the national team, it can only help bring the positive things out in the game, nothing against the overseas players at all, they should always be welcomed, but far too often these players are no better than some of the young local talent the clubs bring through.

Absolutely,people keep banging on about a limited player pool,the talent is there,it just needs to be given the chance.

[Tommygilf]

36 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think I'd be more interested in asking why there are so many injuries already.

Totally agree. 11 first teamers out at the same time, most of them from before the season even started - extreme bad luck I suppose.