The Super League Salary Cap

[Dallas Mead]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

4 years as a director at Leigh , and a not inconsiderable investment expecting no return 

Your comment is a slight , hence my ' personal attack ' , seen it many times both on here and in the pub , people with all the answers , but not the ' bottle ' 

The “bottle” for what exactly?

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

I look at the issue from the opposite angle.

• The Cap should have risen (At least with the rate of inflation each year). 
• Players should see their wage proportionally increase
• RFL and the clubs should have a real commitment to a "Living Wage" for all its players.

The way I look at it - and have regularly articulate it- is the Game needs to  collectively work together to increase its revenue streams and to reduce costs.

I'd argue the senior Game became complacent in doing the above as it could rely on the TV deals, you and me the punters and it very much suits the agenda of the owners of the big Club who can financially dope thee competition by adding debt to their books. 

Well its not done as you say for the last 20 odd years. It has completely failed to do each of those things.

[Saint Toppy]

On 11/06/2022 at 10:19, 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.

I'd go with that but with 1 extra rule - 20 of your 30 players must have come through your own academy system.

That was the best players can get paid well enough to keep them out of the hands of the NRL and RahRah, and clubs can't just go out buy the best players from other clubs, it would force them all to invest more heavily in their own youth system.

[sweaty craiq]

14 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I'd go with that but with 1 extra rule - 20 of your 30 players must have come through your own academy system.

That was the best players can get paid well enough to keep them out of the hands of the NRL and RahRah, and clubs can't just go out buy the best players from other clubs, it would force them all to invest more heavily in their own youth system.

How about 20 of the 30 must be from the local junior teams and post coded areas - that stops mass recruitment of everyones kids by the leading SL clubs

 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

How about 20 of the 30 must be from the local junior teams and post coded areas - that stops mass recruitment of everyones kids by the leading SL clubs

 

Cue kids travelling to clubs in specific areas for scouting

[redjonn]

12 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

My thoughts being if people are really advocating ending the salary cap in order to pay more, then how do we achieve that when the two biggest revenue areas - attendances and the TV deal - has declined? 

If RL does increase its revenue personally I would rather it went towards player/referee/officials development and improved facilities. Integrating the French and British game.

Strengthen  the core first. 

 

Maybe but one of my opinions is that the really low salary cap allows some clubs to not make a greater effort to improve revenues. That is if the TV deal covers most or all salary cap then it restricts those clubs who are driving energetically to improve revenues to gain the benefit on the field of that effort versus those that in comparison coast safe in knowledge not a big difference in player pool.

For example Leeds highest revenue is their commercial and hospitality revenues.  They have and continue to drive that revenue stream plus have improved those commercial facilities to further that revenue stream by enhancing the customer experience further.

Edited June 13, 2022 by redjonn

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Cue kids travelling to clubs in specific areas for scouting

Yes, that's just another mechanism that skews things so the big clubs stay on top.

[gingerjon]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Cue kids travelling to clubs in specific areas for scouting

It's a Leigh fan observing that their postcode would cover both Wigan academy and the local amateur RL sides.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's a Leigh fan observing that their postcode would cover both Wigan academy and the local amateur RL sides.

Seems logical!

[Saint Toppy]

51 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

How about 20 of the 30 must be from the local junior teams and post coded areas - that stops mass recruitment of everyones kids by the leading SL clubs

 

So where do the good kids go who don't have a local SL club or a club with an Academy ? They're forced to miss out on receiving the best coaching & facilities just because of where their parents happen to live.

Even with the best will in the world a Workington, Whitehaven or Barrow (just using Cumbria as an example) just can't provide the same high level of coaching & facilities for young players as a Saints, Wigan or Leeds. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Saint Toppy

[Oxford]

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Its only as unique as we have made it imo as an aside.

But in any case what qualities and hinderances is it that you perceive the sport has? And by extension, of those which are unique to RL?

If your standpoint is that RL is no more and no less unique  than other sports then you've answered my question.

If it shares most or all things with other sports we only have to look around to find what we need.

It can only be a matter of time now that IMG are on board before progress and devlopment will prove that to be the case.

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Oxford

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

How about 20 of the 30 must be from the local junior teams and post coded areas - that stops mass recruitment of everyones kids by the leading SL clubs

 

There's no way that would stand up to a legal challenge. And I would argue that such a move would be detrimental to talent development as a whole. Why would Leeds, Wigan or St Helens invest in their academy offering (better coaching, better facilities, better development opportunities, pastoral care, etc) if it couldn't be used to recruit talent? 

On the salary cap issue, I do think we have to question whether it is achieving what we want it to achieve. Whilst we no longer have one club dominating like we did in the 80s, I would still argue that the salary cap has been something of a blunt instrument in achieving a more equal competition. We know that the bigger clubs get better value out of the salary cap than smaller ones, due to better opportunities, chances of success, better facilities and player welfare, and it is arguably investment in youth development, rather than player salaries, that have the bigger influence on success. 

I also think there is a fairness point here. The players have borne the brunt of the sport's commercial challenges for too long. The salary cap is £1m less in real terms than it was 20 years ago, despite periods of TV revenue and attendance growth in that time (and that is before you factor in that many had pay cuts imposed on them due to COVID) and increased workload in terms of the number of games. The players are more than deserving of greater rewards for their efforts. 

I would much rather see it replaced with an FFP-style system that is linked to club turnover. That way, we encourage clubs to invest in growth if they want to be competitive and - crucially - we don't expect the burden of the game's poor commercial performance to fall on the players in the form of reduced real-terms earnings. It will allow those clubs that want to reward their players appropriately to do so, without having an arbitrary ceiling imposed on them, and it will encourage clubs that struggle to attract talent to raise their standards. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by whatmichaelsays

[Damien]

It gets a bit tiresome the cap always being cited as being necessary to prevent one club dominating. One club dominating without a salary cap is a complete myth that has only ever held true at brief times in 100 years. I honestly believe the introduction of the salary cap was never about that. It was to save clubs money, pure and simple.

In the first 3 years of SL we had 3 different winners, 3 different winners in the 6 years up to the salary cap being introduced in 2002. We had 4 different winners of the Challenge Cup in the 6 seasons prior to 2002 too. The it being introduced to prevent one club dominating argument just doesn't hold true.

If anything a salary cap as we have now only leads to a status quo of clubs dominating as it is setup in a way that no one can challenge them.

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Damien

[sweaty craiq]

The Challenge is Wigan have recruited more Leigh lads than Wigan into the Academy. Saints have a good core of Leigh lads also -  if I were the Dad of one of them I would do the same btw. In 1982 the Leigh team that won the league was maiinly lads from Leigh Colts

 

[Man of Kent]

#ScrapTheCap 

 

[gingerjon]

17 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I would much rather see it replaced with an FFP-style system that is linked to club turnover. That way, we encourage clubs to invest in growth if they want to be competitive and - crucially - we don't expect the burden of the game's poor commercial performance to fall on the players in the form of reduced real-terms earnings. It will allow those clubs that want to reward their players appropriately to do so, without having an arbitrary ceiling imposed on them, and it will encourage clubs that struggle to attract talent to raise their standards. 

Agree with pretty much your whole post but especially this.

[TrueBull]

19 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

I look at the issue from the opposite angle.

• The Cap should have risen (At least with the rate of inflation each year). 
• Players should see their wage proportionally increase
• RFL and the clubs should have a real commitment to a "Living Wage" for all its players.

The way I look at it - and have regularly articulate it- is the Game needs to  collectively work together to increase its revenue streams and to reduce costs.

I'd argue the senior Game became complacent in doing the above as it could rely on the TV deals, you and me the punters and it very much suits the agenda of the owners of the big Club who can financially dope thee competition by adding debt to their books. 

The cap should have risen. At least in line with inflation. My own thought was the cap should have been tied into the tv rights increases. So every 5 years or so ( until the last tv deal anyway) the cap would have gone up by a % similar to the increase in central funding. 

[Harry Stottle]

There will have to be a complete about turn of which clubs can run academies and the rules which allows those clubs to benefit on cap exemptions from the lads that they bring through their system - a rule which I believe is fair enough, for the time and effort that has been put in to bringing those player's through.

This season it will be a club who gains promotion from the Championship that are not allowed - barring London or Newcastle - to compete on level terms in the division they will be entering, if as expected it is Leigh or Fev (or at very long odds York) then would they have a legal case in contesting the situation as it stands?

The salary cap and running an academy are inextricably linked, the governing body has made it that way, if the cap is increased then having an academy should be a given.

[GUBRATS]

On 13/06/2022 at 11:18, Saint Toppy said:

I'd go with that but with 1 extra rule - 20 of your 30 players must have come through your own academy system.

That was the best players can get paid well enough to keep them out of the hands of the NRL and RahRah, and clubs can't just go out buy the best players from other clubs, it would force them all to invest more heavily in their own youth system.

And if you are not allowed an academy ? , Play just the 10 ?

[Wigan Riversider]

Scrap the cap.

[Dave T]

I find it really, really small time when people make demands like having to have loads of players from the small town the stadium is based in. 

I want our clubs to have the best RL players we can possibly afford, wherever they happened to be born and grown up. We should incentivise player development in other ways (financial rewards). 

[Damien]

Some of the greatest players ever to play the game were born far away from where they made their names. The lack of star players and quality, brought on by years of a declining salary cap in real terms, is directly related to clubs not being able to sign players of the ilk that I was lucky enough to watch not too long ago. The game needs more bums on seats players.

Youth development should just be one part of a clubs strategy, it shouldn't be the only strategy. If a club wants to sign players from elsewhere then so be it (within the overseas quota limits).

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

Some of the greatest players ever to play the game were born far away from where they made their names. The lack of star players and quality, brought on by years of a declining salary cap in real terms, is directly related to clubs not being able to sign players of the ilk that I was lucky enough to watch not too long ago. The game needs more bums on seats players.

Youth development should just be one part of a clubs strategy, it shouldn't be the only strategy. If a club wants to sign players from elsewhere then so be it (within the overseas quota limits).

Yup. Link central funding to home grown players if we want to drive it, but if a club wants to bring the best rugby players from around the world, they should do so. 

[idrewthehaggis]

On 13/06/2022 at 11:11, Damien said:

Well its not done as you say for the last 20 odd years. It has completely failed to do each of those things.

With respect, in my opinion, it is not the Cap that has failed, but it's the management of it (not rising) and the inability of RL to substantially raise revenue. 

On 13/06/2022 at 12:00, redjonn said:

Maybe but one of my opinions is that the really low salary cap allows some clubs to not make a greater effort to improve revenues. That is if the TV deal covers most or all salary cap then it restricts those clubs who are driving energetically to improve revenues to gain the benefit on the field of that effort versus those that in comparison coast safe in knowledge not a big difference in player pool.

For example Leeds highest revenue is their commercial and hospitality revenues.  They have and continue to drive that revenue stream plus have improved th, etc ose commercial facilities to further that revenue stream by enhancing the customer experience further.

I doubt there remains any club who aren't "driving" revenue. especially post COVID. Some are roaring ahead, others do their best, some dodge the red lights and are shifty. 

The introduction of a Fair play system would be interesting, given one of our leading clubs apparently maintains a debt of £8m and has regularly broken the salary cap. It would be interesting if the RFL could be trusted to act impartially or even act at all.

Still the anti Capites have no answer to the question I posed. 

How do we end the Cap and it's consequence of increased top end wages, when revenue in terms of attendance and TV has declined?

Stuff costs money. Salary cap or no cap, if the Game has no money then it ensures it's poverty. Money isn't the problem, but the lack of it is.

[Dallas Mead]

Scrap the cap.