The Super League Salary Cap

[Damien]

36 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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.

I'm not adverse to either of these changes so don't get me wrong on this post and I would welcome them. I have long complained on here of the decline in salary cap in real terms and said that at the minimum it needs to return to the original level in real terms.

However I think it goes back to what is the point of the cap. This will not stop clubs going bust as per your previous post. That is fine for me, as I said previously that is the responsibility of clubs. If thats not the point then why have a £3 million limit at all?

It does not stop clubs hoarding talent. A simple measure that clubs can't have more than say 20 players earning more than 50k does that. You could even also say no club can have no more than say 8 earning more than 100k. Again I'm not sure if hard limits are needed when there are simply far better and easier ways to distribute talent.

As I said I would welcome both your suggestions but it just leaves me thinking that setting hard limits in this way fails in both the reasons people use to justify the cap. I see hard limits doing nothing but meaning big clubs don't need to spend too much. I certainly think some variations of no club having more than 20 players that can earn more than 50k equalises talent far more than an arbitrary salary cap limit if the goal is a more even competition.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

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

Presumably the same sort of people who replaced these owners in comparative sports a while back.

[Cameron Highlander]

4 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

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

All-righty then.  That then MIGHT make some difference in perspective between the two individuals in question here.

4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

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

More than likely the pandemic had an impact, who knows whether a positive one or a negative on, on David's net worth, as it pretty well did for most people.  But, even if it was a negative impact, IMHO, it would not take ones net worth from circa $2/$3 Billion to zero, zip, zilch.  There would still be a few quid/bob available for pet projects.  No, again IMHO, I believe that David, looking at all the obstacles in play AT THAT TIME, together with his having incurred costs of upwards of $30 Million since 2016, just said to himself......"self, I've had a blast for ~4 years but the foreseeable future does not look promising, so I'm gonna throw in the towel".   Now, the way that was accomplished and ended up was NOT PRETTY, for everyone concerned, but let's not go down THAT rabbit hole again, especially since this is a Salary Cap thread and thus bears no relation to those happenings back then.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Cameron Highlander

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Presumably the same sort of people who replaced these owners in comparative sports a while back.

Like russian billionaires ? 

Or your real answer , you don't know 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Cameron Highlander said:

All-righty then.  That then MIGHT make some difference in perspective between the two individuals in question here.

More than likely the pandemic had an impact, who knows whether a positive one or a negative on, on David's net worth, as it pretty well did for most people.  But, even if it was a negative impact, IMHO, it would not take ones net worth from circa $2/$3 Billion to zero, zip, zilch.  There would still be a few quid/bob available for pet projects.  No, again IMHO, I believe that David, looking at all the obstacles in play AT THAT TIME, together with his having incurred costs of upwards of $30 Million since 2016, just said to himself......"self, I've had a blast for ~4 years but the foreseeable future does not look promising, so I'm gonna throw in the towel".   Now, the way that was accomplished and ended up was NOT PRETTY, for everyone concerned, but let's not go down THAT rabbit hole again, especially since this is a Salary Cap thread and thus bears no relation to those happenings back then.

I said his ' cash ' assets , somebody can be extremely wealthy , but have money tied up in companies , and realising cash from those assets isn't always easy , sometimes taking a massive loss well over the actual cash return 

Or you may be right , or he may have realised how daft the idea was in the first place , just because somebody has amassed considerable wealth in one or a few particular fields doesn't preclude them from bad decision making in others , many billionaires have more failures than successes , knowing when to ' get out ' is the key to being on the right side of the balance sheet overall 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Cameron Highlander said:

All-righty then.  That then MIGHT make some difference in perspective between the two individuals in question here.

More than likely the pandemic had an impact, who knows whether a positive one or a negative on, on David's net worth, as it pretty well did for most people.  But, even if it was a negative impact, IMHO, it would not take ones net worth from circa $2/$3 Billion to zero, zip, zilch.  There would still be a few quid/bob available for pet projects.  No, again IMHO, I believe that David, looking at all the obstacles in play AT THAT TIME, together with his having incurred costs of upwards of $30 Million since 2016, just said to himself......"self, I've had a blast for ~4 years but the foreseeable future does not look promising, so I'm gonna throw in the towel".   Now, the way that was accomplished and ended up was NOT PRETTY, for everyone concerned, but let's not go down THAT rabbit hole again, especially since this is a Salary Cap thread and thus bears no relation to those happenings back then.

My reply to Dallas Mead was because of his reference to ' Corner shop owners ' as some form of insult , anybody , and I mean anybody who puts money ( as in ownership/shares/sponsorship ) into RL clubs deserves respect , with his comment he shows his ignorance , hence my reply to him , something he has chosen not to reply to , unsurprisingly 

[Tommygilf]

28 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Like russian billionaires ? 

Or your real answer , you don't know 

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Childish response to my question as usual , pity we don't have child locks on this site 

One day when you've actually lived a bit , you might end up posting better 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Childish response to my question as usual , pity we don't have child locks on this site 

One day when you've actually lived a bit , you might end up posting better 

Childish responses that are attempts to be smart from yourself warrant nothing more.

Look at the rest of sports in this country, simple as.

[Oxford]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Look at the rest of sports in this country, simple as.

I found this bit intriguing Tommy

Do you think that other sports expriences can really help RL in any way?

[Snowys Backside]

Scrap the cap !

[Tommygilf]

30 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I found this bit intriguing Tommy

Do you think that other sports expriences can really help RL in any way?

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. 

I also think that anyone suggesting RL couldn't learn from any other sport or industry would find themselves being ludicrously aloof or even arrogant. Nothing of course is ever fully translatable, but RL is certainly not immune to trends, ideas and concepts from outside working within. Indeed RL as a concept, a Rugby "League", is one borrowed from Association Football, as is the Challenge Cup too - because League's and Cup's were popular at the time of their inception. 

[GUBRATS]

Its a shame we have owners who aren't rich enough for the fans of the sport , but all be they the likes of Mr Moran at Wire to Andy Mazey at Rochdale deserve respect , anybody who cannot see that doesn't deserve any respect on here 

IMO 

[Oxford]

3 hours ago, 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. 

I also think that anyone suggesting RL couldn't learn from any other sport or industry would find themselves being ludicrously aloof or even arrogant. Nothing of course is ever fully translatable, but RL is certainly not immune to trends, ideas and concepts from outside working within. Indeed RL as a concept, a Rugby "League", is one borrowed from Association Football, as is the Challenge Cup too - because League's and Cup's were popular at the time of their inception. 

Tommy I liked you post. It wasn't about could we learn from other sports which would be silly. I was thinking that because the experience of RL is fairly unique and are there any other sports that share that set of qualities and hinderances?

 

[Dallas Mead]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

My reply to Dallas Mead was because of his reference to ' Corner shop owners ' as some form of insult , anybody , and I mean anybody who puts money ( as in ownership/shares/sponsorship ) into RL clubs deserves respect , with his comment he shows his ignorance , hence my reply to him , something he has chosen not to reply to , unsurprisingly 

Sorry champion, been out tonight.

 

I have no ignorance on this subject, thanks for the personal attack though, I’ve sponsored my club multiple times - have you?  My comments are no slight on individuals, more a slight on the sport that they (we) struggle to attract big money people into the sport.

[Tommygilf]

57 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Tommy I liked you post. It wasn't about could we learn from other sports which would be silly. I was thinking that because the experience of RL is fairly unique and are there any other sports that share that set of qualities and hinderances?

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?

[idrewthehaggis]

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. 

 

[GUBRATS]

45 minutes ago, Dallas Mead said:

Sorry champion, been out tonight.

 

I have no ignorance on this subject, thanks for the personal attack though, I’ve sponsored my club multiple times - have you?  My comments are no slight on individuals, more a slight on the sport that they (we) struggle to attract big money people into the sport.

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 ' 

[idrewthehaggis]

57 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

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

Fair does.  What I like about this forum is the multitude of experiences /skills /knowledge on here.

I think RL has deep grained structural deficits and self interest but thankfully many talents and a tremendous backstory.

[idrewthehaggis]

6 hours ago, 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. 

I also think that anyone suggesting RL couldn't learn from any other sport or industry would find themselves being ludicrously aloof or even arrogant. 

My thoughts is good practice should be shared from within the game and from outside.

I am probably more radical than most, but I feel that supporters/players should have a deeper involvement in running the Game than just exceptionally rich club owners and RFL bureaucrats. 

The more involved the better. So I basically concur with you.

 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Its a shame we have owners who aren't rich enough for the fans of the sport ,

It actually is.

[JohnM]

7 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 ' 

4 years as a director at Leigh 

They do say that confession is good for the soul.

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

My thoughts is good practice should be shared from within the game and from outside.

I am probably more radical than most, but I feel that supporters/players should have a deeper involvement in running the Game than just exceptionally rich club owners and RFL bureaucrats. 

The more involved the better. So I basically concur with you.

I do see what you mean. I can see the appeal of supporter owned/part owned clubs, though I feel unless they are really mass (numbers) membership, then they are likely to find themselves in the lower divisions. To compete at the very top that sort of model has to generate massive incomes and even then they often look to bank loans (looking at sport more broadly). I can wholeheartedly see why it would be relatively easier to work for a sustainable 2nd or 3rd division side, just that without 15k plus members it would be a struggle to compete in Super League.

I think your point about "exceptionally rich" owners is telling. The truth is, and I've met and know a fair few, they aren't "exceptionally rich". Most are wealthy, hard working owners of small to mid sized businesses and now live very comfortable lives, but there isn't anything "exceptional" about their wealth. Exceptional maybe to you're average punter on the street, but small fry in the world of sports team ownership. A couple are genuinely mega rich individuals, but by and large they own the most profitable clubs anyway.

I suspect in the initial stages any cap increase or removal will actually involve more consortiums of similarly wealthy people owning clubs. Not only will that dilute a lot of the ego that is attached to much of club chairmanship, but also make certain clubs less financially reliant on a specific individual (who as stated above is probably not that "exceptionally" wealthy in the first place). I think that is a good move more generally for the sport. 

I don't actually think this is too radical. We used to ask a lot more of club chairmen and boards, financially certainly. 

[Damien]

9 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.

When attendances and TV deals went up in the past the salary cap didn't. Sometimes it was still even reduced. Clubs even now get substantially more TV money than when the salary cap was first introduced but the salary cap has only risen marginally in that time and only did so in the last TV deal.

It's funny how people can continually advocate no increase in wages for players but certainly would not tolerate their own pay being capped or a 40% reduction in real terms over 20 odd years.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Damien

[idrewthehaggis]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

When attendances and TV deals went up in the past the salary cap didn't. Sometimes it was still even reduced. Clubs even now get substantially more TV money than when the salary cap was first introduced but the salary cap has only risen marginally in that time and only did so in the last TV deal.

It's funny how people can continually advocate no increase in wages for players but certainly would not tolerate their own pay being capped or a 40% reduction in real terms over 20 odd years.

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.