The Super League Salary Cap

[redjonn]

On 14/06/2022 at 21:09, idrewthehaggis said:

 

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.

Fair enough...

I think if the cap had been allowed to raise or even be removed then some clubs could have kept the talent that goes to the NRL. Thus improving the product on the field and potential interest in the sport. Of course the pandemic and introduced greater cost control issues.

I personally think the clubs could have increased increased charges over and above what they have been to date over the past decade.

I also think a greater emphasis on attacking corporate / hospitality income over the decade could have increased revenue.

I also think greater efforts in attracting a wider demographic needs to be made, although that for sure is a longer term approach and requires investment which is readily available now.

Greater amounts of money should have been invested in a better overall marketing department when the TV monies was greater and over the last decades.

The situation is as it is now because of over reliance on the TV monies leading to complacence and not sufficient efforts in growing other revenues. We are hence stuck in the situation as per your comment were the only solution is to increase prices and allow the stronger financial clubs the freedom to use that strength to improve the overall product on the field by keeping or attracting the talent that would translate at some stage to better TV deals.

 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Wholly Trinity said:

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

What makes more sense is all SL clubs being made to run an Academy to Elite Academy standard as a condition of being in SL

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

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. 

 

Is it ? 

[Wholly Trinity]

22 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

What makes more sense is all SL clubs being made to run an Academy to Elite Academy standard as a condition of being in SL

So, potentially 3 elite academies in Wakefield District next year?

I think the argument is for quality over quantity with the added bonus of increased geographical spread. 

It needs the sums to be done to get the balance right between developing the top youngsters and impinging on community clubs.

How many academy players get 1st team contracts each year across the sport?

[Tommygilf]

14 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

So, potentially 3 elite academies in Wakefield District next year?

I think the argument is for quality over quantity with the added bonus of increased geographical spread. 

It needs the sums to be done to get the balance right between developing the top youngsters and impinging on community clubs.

How many academy players get 1st team contracts each year across the sport?

I think when you look at the participation numbers quoted for the NRLW new teams, you see why the RFL are wanting to restrict Grade 1 academies. I suspect the quoted numbers there dwarf the areas covered by the 3 WF teams: which really is still covered with 2 teams so is just splitting the pie again.

To me, there isn't enough money and opportunity in the sport to justify a young person sacrificing a lot of their education etc to pursue a Grade 1 academy. I'd have all of the clubs be allowed to run grade 3 College based academies, and if they must, a very small number running Grade 1 academies (literally 4 or 5) as an elite development path at most. That would probably seem unfair but kids getting £200 a month as fringe first team/academy players only to be dropped by the time they are 21 is also very unfair.

Till Grade 1 academies can cope with academic aspirations I find them very difficult to justify. Likewise, till the player pool is large and diverse enough to genuinely sustain X number of academies, I don't think Grade 1 status should be handed out just on the basis of "you're in Super League".

[GUBRATS]

14 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

So, potentially 3 elite academies in Wakefield District next year?

I think the argument is for quality over quantity with the added bonus of increased geographical spread. 

It needs the sums to be done to get the balance right between developing the top youngsters and impinging on community clubs.

How many academy players get 1st team contracts each year across the sport?

Depends how you want to work it out , in theory a SL team will need to replace 2 players a year , so again in theory 24 a year will go on to have a 10/12/14 year RL career at the top level 

[GUBRATS]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think when you look at the participation numbers quoted for the NRLW new teams, you see why the RFL are wanting to restrict Grade 1 academies. I suspect the quoted numbers there dwarf the areas covered by the 3 WF teams: which really is still covered with 2 teams so is just splitting the pie again.

To me, there isn't enough money and opportunity in the sport to justify a young person sacrificing a lot of their education etc to pursue a Grade 1 academy. I'd have all of the clubs be allowed to run grade 3 College based academies, and if they must, a very small number running Grade 1 academies (literally 4 or 5) as an elite development path at most. That would probably seem unfair but kids getting £200 a month as fringe first team/academy players only to be dropped by the time they are 21 is also very unfair.

Till Grade 1 academies can cope with academic aspirations I find them very difficult to justify. Likewise, till the player pool is large and diverse enough to genuinely sustain X number of academies, I don't think Grade 1 status should be handed out just on the basis of "you're in Super League".

I agree , but as you and others have pointed out , that is unfair , and could be looked at as a restriction of trade 

Could the sport survive with just part time college academies for all ? 

[Wholly Trinity]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Depends how you want to work it out , in theory a SL team will need to replace 2 players a year , so again in theory 24 a year will go on to have a 10/12/14 year RL career at the top level 

So the question is, how many elite academies are needed to guarantee the supply of the best 24 players to SL clubs each year? 

Reducing numbers should also result in increased remuneration for those selected. 

I don't think players could be restricted to which academy they join. If, say, the West Yorkshire academy has 3 top scrum-halves in its catchment area, they should be free to go wherever they like. 

I would envisage all SL clubs running a scholarship team linked to an FE college and an A-team where players from regional academies could be drafted in on an ad hoc trial basis.

There needs to be a clear development route from age limit community clubs to SL first team. 

The problem still remains with (mainly) forwards who are nowhere near ready for regular SL games at age 19. Currently, they seem to play a mix of reserves and on loan to lower division clubs.

The reserves seems to be somewhat half-hearted this year with games every other week (understandable with funding restrictions) such that it is sub-optimal. It tends to be a mix of first-teamers dropped or coming back from injury and academy players. The young 19/20 year-olds tend to go out on loan. There needs to be fixtures every week for it to be useful. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

I agree , but as you and others have pointed out , that is unfair , and could be looked at as a restriction of trade 

Could the sport survive with just part time college academies for all ? 

I suspect a lot will be fine, if not better, particularly at semi pro levels. 

I think they would keep an elite more "Full time" route open however, just with massively reduced numbers. 

[GUBRATS]

29 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I suspect a lot will be fine, if not better, particularly at semi pro levels. 

I think they would keep an elite more "Full time" route open however, just with massively reduced numbers. 

Which if those ' elite ' were tied into certain clubs gives those clubs an advantage 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Which if those ' elite ' were tied into certain clubs gives those clubs an advantage 

Indeed, though with the caveat that you'd be dealing with whole teams of players capable of stepping up to the big league, rather than a handful, and the Academy running club obviously could not cater to all those players and the rest of the league would be able to offer contracts.

[Jughead]

If we’re going round in circles about structures, born out of reduced revenue, there’s not a chance that the daft idea of regional academies are ever going to happen. 

[GUBRATS]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, though with the caveat that you'd be dealing with whole teams of players capable of stepping up to the big league, rather than a handful, and the Academy running club obviously could not cater to all those players and the rest of the league would be able to offer contracts.

It's still a massive benefit to those clubs , and it's still only 20/30 per year 

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It's still a massive benefit to those clubs , and it's still only 20/30 per year 

As I said though, life isn't fair, and the current system is incredibly unfair