The Super League Salary Cap

[Tommygilf]

8 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

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?

TV Money has only been higher once before in Super League history.

Up till 2015 the expectation was that generated revenues and directors investments would be used to cover the rest of the wages by default. If the constricting cap doesn't go then those revenue streams will continue to decline.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, Dave T said:

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). 

 

13 hours 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).

 

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

Again I will ask the question of you two gents, this season we will see a team promoted who have been refused to run an academy, so their cap spend will be at a disadvantage by not recieving the allowances of bringing 'home grown' player's through the system, if you believe that to be the correct course of action then there is nothing else to add, but just adding an academy for next season will not have any impact at all it will take a period of time for an academy to bear the fruits, so as a suggestion should a promoted team have an extra allowance to sign overseas player's beyond the quota limits, or can you think of anything else that would balance up the Championship team entering the higher division to what the SL teams recieve?

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

 

Again I will ask the question of you two gents, this season we will see a team promoted who have been refused to run an academy, so their cap spend will be at a disadvantage by not recieving the allowances of bringing 'home grown' player's through the system, if you believe that to be the correct course of action then there is nothing else to add, but just adding an academy for next season will not have any impact at all it will take a period of time for an academy to bear the fruits, so as a suggestion should a promoted team have an extra allowance to sign overseas player's beyond the quota limits, or can you think of anything else that would balance up the Championship team entering the higher division to what the SL teams recieve?

I think this is a good example of flawed strategy. Something that may look good on paper but in practice is problematic. 

I'm not sure the answer is what you suggest, but rather we should go to the root cause. 

[gingerjon]

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a good example of flawed strategy. Something that may look good on paper but in practice is problematic. 

I'm not sure the answer is what you suggest, but rather we should go to the root cause. 

The root cause of Leigh not having an academy is that they didn't pass the RFL's standards test.

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The root cause of Leigh not having an academy is that they didn't pass the RFL's standards test.

That's one of the things I'm hinting at. 

However, didn't the RFL have a strategy where they have limited licences? That may be flawed thinking when linking them to clubs. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

That's one of the things I'm hinting at. 

However, didn't the RFL have a strategy where they have limited licences? That may be flawed thinking when linking them to clubs. 

I'm not sure because they did then say they would work with clubs who missed out to ensure they would be able to meet those standards in future - which wouldn't be possible if the number was limited.

(But you could be right. It doesn't have to make sense after all.)

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm not sure because they did then say they would work with clubs who missed out to ensure they would be able to meet those standards in future - which wouldn't be possible if the number was limited.

(But you could be right. It doesn't have to make sense after all.)

Either way, for me it's a jumbled strategy. Demanding standards at dev level but not really at pro level just creates this weird middle ground. 

As a general principal, no SL club shouldn't have a youth pyramid (ignoring the complexities about geographical overlap etc.) 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

Either way, for me it's a jumbled strategy. Demanding standards at dev level but not really at pro level just creates this weird middle ground. 

As a general principal, no SL club shouldn't have a youth pyramid (ignoring the complexities about geographical overlap etc.) 

It is jumbled.

I am very much in favour of minimum standards in all things, though.

The FAW Tier 1 club guide being my bible in this (or beibl, if we're being properly Welsh) and I think (know) the game would be better and stronger if we followed its simplicity and positivity.

https://www.faw.cymru/files/4416/3118/4102/FAW_Tier_1_Club_Licensing_Regulations_2021.pdf

[Big Picture]

On 12/06/2022 at 13:08, Tommygilf said:

I think the idea that the people involved in the sport now are the only people who ever will be is preposterous - particularly at the Chairman level as was being suggested.

Unfortunately it is preposterous absent a big increase in the sport's image, status and profile because without that the sort of rich men who'd otherwise consider buying into one of the established major pro leagues where franchise/club values  are steadily rising won't come anywhere near it.  They're looking for the sort of growth in those values which saw Chelsea's value rise from the 140 million £ which Roman Abramovich paid for it 19 years ago to the 4.25 billion £ he just sold it for, the price of an NHL expansion franchise rise from the 25 million US$ paid by Anaheim in 1993 to the 650 million US$ recently paid by Seattle, the price of an MLS expansion franchise rise from the 10 million US$ paid by Toronto in 2007 to the 325 million US$ recently paid by Charlotte, etc. which are all based on the steady rise of those other leagues' revenues.

And as all of us here know, nothing like that sort of growth is on the cards for a British RL club.  Raising the sport's image, status and profile so it could attract the sort of owners who buy into established major league is beyond their capabilities.

[DemonUK]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

That's one of the things I'm hinting at. 

However, didn't the RFL have a strategy where they have limited licences? That may be flawed thinking when linking them to clubs. 

Yes, I think the number was 10.  More than 10 'met' the standards. Leigh were deemed not to be in the top 10

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, DemonUK said:

Yes, I think the number was 10.  More than 10 'met' the standards. Leigh were deemed not to be in the top 10

Castleford, Bradford and Hull KR were also not granted a licence or put another way their licence which they held for running an academy was revoked, presumably like Leigh they did not meet the standards required, but because the weight of disagreement from within the game about the RFL's judgement was such they "Changed their mind" about turned and granted Cas, Bradford and HKR a licence, it just shows to me how influential and direct our sports leaders are, they are absolute carp, if they had any bottle they would have stuck with their original and long winded reason for their judgement.

I will never be convinced any other way that Leigh's application which carried a £400K investment from Mr Beaumont along with putting in place a management structure headed by Gareth Carvell was denied because of it's locallity to three of the Big Guns who have access to Leigh lads and regularly sign them.

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The root cause of Leigh not having an academy is that they didn't pass the RFL's standards test.

And those standards are ?

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

And those standards are ?

They’re the ones Leigh failed to meet and accepted they didn’t meet.

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They’re the ones Leigh failed to meet and accepted they didn’t meet.

So you don't know , just say it , you'll feel better trust me 

[Dallas Mead]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So you don't know , just say it , you'll feel better trust me 

Who knows?  Who cares?  Multiple clubs passed the standards.  Leigh did not.  End of.

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

Who knows?  Who cares?  Multiple clubs passed the standards.  Leigh did not.  End of.

Who cares ? , Well you and Gingerjon it would seem 

The ' standards ' as I understand it , ( might be wrong ) require you to have a certain number of players come through , but if you don't have an academy , how do you have players come through ? 

Double edged is the phrase 

[Dallas Mead]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who cares ? , Well you and Gingerjon it would seem 

The ' standards ' as I understand it , ( might be wrong ) require you to have a certain number of players come through , but if you don't have an academy , how do you have players come through ? 

Double edged is the phrase 

I don’t know and more importantly mate I don’t care.  I suspect neither does Gingerjon?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

I don’t know and more importantly mate I don’t care.  I suspect neither does Gingerjon?

So you aren't interested in reasons why , as then you couldn't make childish ' digs ' , sounds about right 

[Magic Superbeetle]

17 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Who cares ? , Well you and Gingerjon it would seem 

The ' standards ' as I understand it , ( might be wrong ) require you to have a certain number of players come through , but if you don't have an academy , how do you have players come through ? 

Double edged is the phrase 

You know Leigh can still have an academy right? The elite academy system is mainly about education for young players and continuing their studies alongside their training as a professional. Clubs without an elite license simply partner with a local college, demonstrate that they’re investing in their youngsters (not just the ones who have a shot at turning professional but all players even if their future is outside of the game) and hey presto not only are you developing players but likely get the elite licence back as well.

Sadly too many clubs took loosing the license as a convenient excuse to cut all funding to youth development with a convenient “blame the RFL” rather than taking it as the kick up the backside to invest more. Short termism within the game is a chronic problem at the moment, to the point were actually having to incentivise teams to develop their own, instead of depending on overseas/the same few academies that are well versed in setting players up for the professional game.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

You know Leigh can still have an academy right? The elite academy system is mainly about education for young players and continuing their studies alongside their training as a professional. Clubs without an elite license simply partner with a local college, demonstrate that they’re investing in their youngsters (not just the ones who have a shot at turning professional but all players even if their future is outside of the game) and hey presto not only are you developing players but likely get the elite licence back as well.

Sadly too many clubs took loosing the license as a convenient excuse to cut all funding to youth development with a convenient “blame the RFL” rather than taking it as the kick up the backside to invest more. Short termism within the game is a chronic problem at the moment, to the point were actually having to incentivise teams to develop their own, instead of depending on overseas/the same few academies that are well versed in setting players up for the professional game.

Fully aware , I was academy director at Leigh in the early 00 s , personally I don't think it's worthwhile running one , I've seen the way amateur coaches push players into SL scholarships rather than more local clubs and how those SL clubs overload their scholarships , it's a fight you can't win IMO 

But that doesn't mean that the system should be rigged against any club , which it currently is , again IMO 

[Oxford]

9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Who cares ? , Well you and Gingerjon it would seem 

The ' standards ' as I understand it , ( might be wrong ) require you to have a certain number of players come through , but if you don't have an academy , how do you have players come through ? 

Double edged is the phrase 

Correct but it's not double standards it's a deliberate strategy.

They're the RFL, they're not stupid however much people might like to think so.

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Who cares ? , Well you and Gingerjon it would seem 

The ' standards ' as I understand it , ( might be wrong ) require you to have a certain number of players come through , but if you don't have an academy , how do you have players come through ? 

Double edged is the phrase 

I expect that the criteria in your 2nd paragraph is wrong. This sounds like one of those myths that gets repeated and becomes fact - that set criteria would stop any new academy ever being set up. 

[sweaty craiq]

On 15/06/2022 at 10:46, gingerjon said:

The root cause of Leigh not having an academy is that they didn't pass the RFL's standards test.

Thats wrong - the RFL capped the number of Academies and it would have been difficult to scrap the incumbent to be replaced by a start up. If no cap then Leigh would have had one.

[Wholly Trinity]

https://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/sport/19319607.rugby-league-clubs-awarded-elite-academy-licences-2022-27/?ref=rss

The criteria are set out in the article above.

There was potential for up to 12 academies but only 10 were initially awarded elite status according to these criteria.

The advantages of having an elite academy seem to be overplayed. 

From a purely Wakefield perspective there is clearly no salary cap loophole advantage as they currently do not use the current limit.

The financial cost has been widely put at £400k per year. Is this value for money? Or would that be better spent on the first team to get closer to equal spend with other clubs?

The benefits for a club like Wakefield are in recruitment/development of quality players over the medium/long term. Signing established players is more expensive and difficult for such a club which cannot offer success or even top quality facilities. 

 

[Wholly Trinity]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Thought that RFL matched your input so it wouldn´t be 400k but 200k ? Or was this killed with Covid. There´s an argument that the SL money is used to fund acadmies that are regional and not connected to the clubs but cant see it happening tbh. 

Not heard of this.

That would seem unfair if only selected SL clubs get an extra 200k? What do other clubs get in return? A draft system?

Regional academies would make sense in the heartlands, but who runs them?