The Super League Salary Cap

[Dallas Mead]

What is the intended purpose of it nowadays?

[Damien]

To save clubs money.

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

What is the intended purpose of it nowadays?

The RFL has adopted these Salary Cap Regulations (the "Regulations") in order to regulate the value of playing talent available to each Club participating in the league competition managed by the RFL and currently known as the Super League.

The overriding purpose of the Regulations is to protect and promote the long-term health and viability of the game of rugby league. Within that overriding purpose, the specific objectives are: 

1.1.1 to protect the integrity of the Super League competition by ensuring that the determinative factor in the sporting outcome is on-field sporting merit and not off-field financial considerations;

1.1.2 to ensure that the Super League competition remains competitive and therefore attractive to spectators and commercial partners by preventing Clubs with greater financial resources dominating the competition and by ensuring a balanced spread of Players among the participating Clubs; 

1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements; and

1.1.4 by means of the foregoing, to protect the welfare and interests of all Players participating in the Super League competition and of all those aspiring to participate in the Super League competition.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Dallas Mead said:

What is the intended purpose of it nowadays?

To allow bottom feeders to avoid relegation. 

[ATLANTISMAN]

There is no real cap (For those that want to spend more) the Hong Kong or Singapore sandwich used by the bigger clubs over the years is always available if needed:)

 

P

[Tommygilf]

To keep it cheaper for those at the top and affordable for those at the bottom.

There aren't currently enough middle clubs to force change.

[Dallas Mead]

8 hours ago, Eddie said:

To allow bottom feeders to avoid relegation. 

Thank you.  Let’s make it £1,000,000 a year then.  Give Salford and Wakey an even bigger chance

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

Thank you.  Let’s make it £1,000,000 a year then.  Give Salford and Wakey an even bigger chance

It wouldn't even do that though. If you're earning a pittance, you may as well win something. 

[Damien]

Looking at each of those objectives:

1.1.1 - The first word that sprung to mind was ######. Off field financial considerations is still a primary determining factor on sporting outcome. The cap is still weighted to those haves that can sign the best youngsters and bring them through. It is still weighted towards those that can spend the most, both on and off the field, and those that can afford things like marquees. It just means the top clubs have to pay less to stay at the top.

1.1.2 - Its clear that SL has completely failed on this. SL is not competitive with the NRL or with RU. The clubs with greater financial resources still dominate. Attendances and partners have declined in recent years too so the cap has failed to make SL more attractive.

1.1.3 -  The cap doesn't do this either. Clubs can still easily go bust and have financial difficulty and have done so. Clubs can still easily spend beyond their means, cap or no cap.

1.1.4 - Protect the welfare of players and their interests by artificially capping what they can earn, yes that makes sense..... Maybe Rimmer and co should face the same financial restraints. Obviously it would be in their best interests. Aspiring young players? Yes those aspiring players making SL debuts and filling squads on peanuts, can't really see the player welfare interests there.

All in all the cap in its current form completely fails every single one of those objectives.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

To allow bottom feeders to avoid relegation. 

Or to allow top clubs to win things on the cheap. 

[Dunbar]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

Looking at each of those objectives:

1.1.1 - The first word that sprung to mind was ######. Off field financial considerations is still a primary determining factor on sporting outcome. The cap is still weighted to those haves that can sign the best youngsters and bring them through. It is still weighted towards those that can spend the most, both on and off the field, and those that can afford things like marquees. It just means the top clubs have to pay less to stay at the top.

1.1.2 - Its clear that SL has completely failed on this. SL is not competitive with the NRL or with RU. The clubs with greater financial resources still dominate. Attendances and partners have declined in recent years too so the cap has failed to make SL more attractive.

1.1.3 -  The cap doesn't do this either. Clubs can still easily go bust and have financial difficulty and have done so. Clubs can still easily spend beyond their means, cap or no cap.

1.1.4 - Protect the welfare of players and their interests by artificially capping what they can earn, yes that makes sense..... Maybe Rimmer and co should face the same financial restraints. Obviously it would be in their best interests. Aspiring young players? Yes those aspiring players making SL debuts and filling squads on peanuts, can't really see the player welfare interests there.

All in all the cap in its current form completely fails every single one of those objectives.

The only one I would put a counter point up to is 1.1.3.

It is clearly impossible to compare what has happened with legislation in place with a hypothetical outcome should that legislation not have been there but my view is that there would be far more financial turmoil within the clubs if the cap had not been in place.

Of course there is a very valid argument to say it shouldn’t be the job of the RFL to protect the clubs from themselves.  If clubs decide to live beyond their means (perhaps with the gamble of success delivering more revenue) then why not let them? Some will see these gambles pay off and some not... our model says that the governing body is responsible for stopping these gambles I suppose.

And before anyone points to some clubs struggling financially over the last couple of decades, I am well aware of that.  My point is that there could very likely have been considerably more without the cap.

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Or to allow top clubs to win things on the cheap. 

True, which they (including my club) get agreement to do so by offering the carrot to clubs (like your club) of not being totally cut adrift.

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The only one I would put a counter point up to is 1.1.3.

It is clearly impossible to compare what has happened with legislation in place with a hypothetical outcome should that legislation not have been there but my view is that there would be far more financial turmoil within the clubs if the cap had not been in place.

Of course there is a very valid argument to say it shouldn’t be the job of the RFL to protect the clubs from themselves.  If clubs decide to live beyond their means (perhaps with the gamble of success delivering more revenue) then why not let them? Some will see these gambles pay off and some not... our model says that the governing body is responsible for stopping these gambles I suppose.

And before anyone points to some clubs struggling financially over the last couple of decades, I am well aware of that.  My point is that there could very likely have been considerably more without the cap.

I'm not sure and as you say it is very much open to different interpretation and there is no clear answer so I'll avoid the hypotheticals. I am also one of those that thinks it is ultimately the clubs responsibility to live within their means and not go bust. We don't see hoards of Championship clubs going bust because they live within their means (to all intents and purposes the salary cap limit is way beyond most, if not all teams, and in effect is much the same as no cap), I see no reason why SL clubs shouldn't be able to do that.

I do think comparing financial fortunes pre and post salary cap is a little like comparing apples and pears. Clubs essentially got no TV income pre Super League, it was very, very little. I remember an interview with Maurice Lindsay where he said the entire TV deal was a couple of hundred thousand split between all clubs. The last TV deal saw clubs get £1.8 million each. I'm not sure on the new one but I heard it was around around £1.5 million. Clubs these days should be on a firm sounder financial footing anyway, cap or no cap.

There are far better mechanisms in place to either a) ensure clubs don't go bust or b) to ensure the game can still grow whilst preventing clubs hoarding talent. I think the current salary cap is an abject failure on both fronts (which many cite as the reason for it.)

[binosh]

11 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

What is the intended purpose of it nowadays?

To stop Warrington spaffing loads of doe chasing a Grand Final win that’s never coming.

[dboy]

OK, let's remove the financial cap, but add a player cap.

You can spend as much as you like, but you can only have 30 players registered for first team.

We can't return to the days when the rich club's B team was better than most other club's A teams, and the talent was simply mopped up to stop other teams getting them.

Also, if you go bust, you go bust. It's goodbye.

[Dallas Mead]

9 hours ago, dboy said:

OK, let's remove the financial cap, but add a player cap.

You can spend as much as you like, but you can only have 30 players registered for first team.

We can't return to the days when the rich club's B team was better than most other club's A teams, and the talent was simply mopped up to stop other teams getting them.

Also, if you go bust, you go bust. It's goodbye.

That’s fair enough, agree with all of that.

[Dallas Mead]

9 hours ago, binosh said:

To stop Warrington spaffing loads of doe chasing a Grand Final win that’s never coming.

Don’t worry, our owner is worth circa £300,000,000 so it’s all “loose change down the back of the couch” really mate.

[M j M]

What was it about the current week which prompted the OP to question something which stops a club with a rich backer trying to just buy their way to success rather than properly building their team and club?

[Dallas Mead]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

What was it about the current week which prompted the OP to question something which stops a club with a rich backer trying to just buy their way to success rather than properly building their team and club?

Absolutely nothing.  I’m just sick of the salary cap and thus corner shop owners holding the sport back.  We’re running the whole race at the pace of the slowest participants.  Pathetic.

[Oxford]

23 hours ago, Dunbar said:

1.1.1 to protect the integrity of the Super League competition by ensuring that the determinative factor in the sporting outcome is on-field sporting merit and not off-field financial considerations;

1.1.2 to ensure that the Super League competition remains competitive and therefore attractive to spectators and commercial partners by preventing Clubs with greater financial resources dominating the competition and by ensuring a balanced spread of Players among the participating Clubs; 

1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements; and

1.1.4 by means of the foregoing, to protect the welfare and interests of all Players participating in the Super League competition and of all those aspiring to participate in the Super League competition.

After the inspection it was decided to place this organisation is Special Measures.

[Cameron Highlander]

3 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

Don’t worry, our owner is worth circa £300,000,000 so it’s all “loose change down the back of the couch” really mate.

That's as may be.  But if, as you say, your owner is worth as you say, such individuals have not amassed such a value of net worth, to treat any part of them as “loose change down the back of the couch”.  There is a limit for such individuals to xxxx assets away, and the head eventually overrides the heart.  Case in point, David Argyle with the TWP.  David, by all reports, was/is worth about 4 or 5 times the number that you quote above.  Yet even he reached a point where he decided that he had poured enough of his assets "down the back of the couch".  And I DO NOT want to dive down the Rabbit Hole here, again, about "treatment received" by TWP from SLE/RFL as an "influence-maker" in his decision. 

[Dallas Mead]

10 hours ago, Cameron Highlander said:

That's as may be.  But if, as you say, your owner is worth as you say, such individuals have not amassed such a value of net worth, to treat any part of them as “loose change down the back of the couch”.  There is a limit for such individuals to xxxx assets away, and the head eventually overrides the heart.  Case in point, David Argyle with the TWP.  David, by all reports, was/is worth about 4 or 5 times the number that you quote above.  Yet even he reached a point where he decided that he had poured enough of his assets "down the back of the couch".  And I DO NOT want to dive down the Rabbit Hole here, again, about "treatment received" by TWP from SLE/RFL as an "influence-maker" in his decision. 

The difference between Argyle and Simon Moran is that Moran is actually a lifelong Wire fan.

[GUBRATS]

12 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

Absolutely nothing.  I’m just sick of the salary cap and thus corner shop owners holding the sport back.  We’re running the whole race at the pace of the slowest participants.  Pathetic.

So who do you suggest replaces these ' corner shop owners ' ?

[GUBRATS]

10 hours ago, Cameron Highlander said:

That's as may be.  But if, as you say, your owner is worth as you say, such individuals have not amassed such a value of net worth, to treat any part of them as “loose change down the back of the couch”.  There is a limit for such individuals to xxxx assets away, and the head eventually overrides the heart.  Case in point, David Argyle with the TWP.  David, by all reports, was/is worth about 4 or 5 times the number that you quote above.  Yet even he reached a point where he decided that he had poured enough of his assets "down the back of the couch".  And I DO NOT want to dive down the Rabbit Hole here, again, about "treatment received" by TWP from SLE/RFL as an "influence-maker" in his decision. 

Wasn't it the pandemic that reduced Mr Argyles ' cash ' assets, rather than a personal decision ?

[Dunbar]

If we are going to keep the cap, I would do two things immediately. 

1. Increase the cap to £3M. This is what yhe £1.8M cap in 2002 is worth today in real terms.

2. Allow clubs to spend up to a certain percentage of turnover if the value is above £3M which allows clubs with the ambition to grow revenues and therefore their club (and the sport) to see a return on their investment and produce a virtuous cycle of returns.