Removal of salary cap

[AB90]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

Whilst I agree its definitely never going to happen with a marquee signing. No club is going to pay the sort of money needed while there are guys earning £40k or less, it would be crazy for all kinds of reasons. It would take higher salaries across the board and a much higher standard of competition to come close to tempting those kind of players.

Why would it be crazy because some guys are on £40k? Huge discrepancies in salaries from the very top the very bottom occur in the majority of sports & sectors (let’s say a partner at a law firm earns over a £1m a year whilst an intern fresh out of uni may earns £35k). It is what it is.

If Simon Moran or whoever offered Mitchell, Cleary, Tedesco £1.5m a year (which they could do now do if they wanted to and had the money) they would be playing in SL.

[Damien]

7 hours ago, AB90 said:

Why would it be crazy because some guys are on £40k? Huge discrepancies in salaries from the very top the very bottom occur in the majority of sports & sectors (let’s say a partner at a law firm earns over a £1m a year whilst an intern fresh out of uni may earns £35k). It is what it is.

If Simon Moran or whoever offered Mitchell, Cleary, Tedesco £1.5m a year (which they could do now do if they wanted to and had the money) they would be playing in SL.

And if the said player gets injured? Is a flop? We see it very often in SL, no chairman would do that. If you were spending £1.5 million then there are far wiser ways any team could do that.

Your analogies are also absurd. We are not comparing completely different levels of years and skills, it is players playing in the same team doing the same role. If you don't think it wouldn't create a great amount of trouble amongst the squad then you are dreaming. We've seen that with players earning much less. It would in any workplace. Also the interns you cite are earning less than 20k in SL.

It also becomes a little daft resorting to Micky Mouse figures to try and make a silly point. £1.5 million is about 5 times more than any SL player gets. It's double any NRL player. It's 50% more than any RU player. It's not going to happen. Even at all that I'd strongly dispute any top player would throw away what they have in the NRL and come to SL. Representative appearances, endorsements etc would eat into any increase anyhow. Over half any increase is lost in tax and national insurance too.

For many players, who are well paid anyway, they are well paid enough and have a good enough lifestyle without pimping themselves. Hence why there was never an exodus of NRL players when they could have earned far more in French RU.

[Harry Stottle]

20 hours ago, Davo5 said:

No we shouldn’t scrap the salary cap,but it should be increased and a condition of Superleague membership is to spend up to the full cap.

To do that Dav - which I don't disagree with - then some players will be earning more than there actual worth because we simply do not produce enough top talent to satisfy the requirements of 12 teams, or do something that very recently you have disagreed with that is to increase the number of overseas player's allowed or even scrap the limit altogether.

[Harry Stottle]

20 hours ago, AB90 said:

All teams spending the full is the real game changer. A salary cap only really works when all teams are spending the same amount on players.

In theory, the minimum spend should be the entire cap (or a minimum of at least 95%).

Isn't that the situation in the NRL? And if teams don't spend up to the required level don't they get fined?

[Davo5]

31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To do that Dav - which I don't disagree with - then some players will be earning more than there actual worth because we simply do not produce enough top talent to satisfy the requirements of 12 teams, or do something that very recently you have disagreed with that is to increase the number of overseas player's allowed or even scrap the limit altogether.

You  do realise there are a large number of Superleague players on a relative pittance of a wage,and paying them what there worth might actually attract more talent to the game as well as making it more attractive for players who have previously decided to stay part time because of good employment.

Increasing the overseas quota should never be an option.

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

It could also be that SL is not an attractive proposition for NRL players in their prime. 

Nor would they be eligible to play for Australia if they joined SL.

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, The Future is League said:

I can see both sides of the coin on this, but the likes of Salford and Wakefield probably can't afford to pay their players anymore without going to the wall, but it would suit Leigh with DB's money bankrolling them and possibly Newcastle.

Especially if DB took up Dr Koukash's offer to join him at Leigh, happy days if your a Leigh fan more so if the cap and import restrictions are abolished.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

To do that Dav - which I don't disagree with - then some players will be earning more than there actual worth because we simply do not produce enough top talent to satisfy the requirements of 12 teams, or do something that very recently you have disagreed with that is to increase the number of overseas player's allowed or even scrap the limit altogether.

I think the not enough talent argument is often skewed and ignores other issues. There will never be enough talent to magically fill teams to the standard of the top clubs if teams don't make the necessary investment and have standards off the field.

We don't have enough big clubs investing in quality off field setups to attract talent. We don't pay young players enough for RL to be a particularly attractive career choice. We don't have enough clubs developing players like Wigan, Saints and Leeds do. It's not all about cherry picking the best youngsters and job done.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

And if the said player gets injured?

Is a flop

Never heard of player insurance?

And for the second part, that's the chance any club takes when signing a player.

2 hours ago, Damien said:

£1.5 million is about 5 times more than any SL player gets

There is a Player at Warrington on only three times less than the stated £1.5M

[AB90]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

And if the said player gets injured? Is a flop? We see it very often in SL, no chairman would do that. If you were spending £1.5 million then there are far wiser ways any team could do that.

Your analogies are also absurd. We are not comparing completely different levels of years and skills, it is players playing in the same team doing the same role. If you don't think it wouldn't create a great amount of trouble amongst the squad then you are dreaming. We've seen that with players earning much less. It would in any workplace. Also the interns you cite are earning less than 20k in SL.

It also becomes a little daft resorting to Micky Mouse figures to try and make a silly point. £1.5 million is about 5 times more than any SL player gets. It's double any NRL player. It's 50% more than any RU player. It's not going to happen. Even at all that I'd strongly dispute any top player would throw away what they have in the NRL and come to SL. Representative appearances, endorsements etc would eat into any increase anyhow. Over half any increase is lost in tax and national insurance too.

For many players, who are well paid anyway, they are well paid enough and have a good enough lifestyle without pimping themselves. Hence why there was never an exodus of NRL players when they could have earned far more in French RU.

If a teams highest paid player gets injured or is a flop then that’s unfortunate (agreed). Just like it is now and how it is in every team sport (especially salary capped sports). No really sure what your point is.

Regarding my absurd analogy, what exactly are you saying here? I assume it is ‘player X’ earns significantly less than ‘player Y’ and is subsequently upset about it. Again, I don’t really see what your point is as it happens in literally every single sport (including SL). My suggestion to ‘player X’ is to get better at your craft/job and earn a pay rise.

Yes, the £1.5m is Mickey Mouse money but my point is that SL clubs/owners can currently spend an unlimited/uncapped amount of money for the 2 highest paid players in their team (I.e no salary cap for those specific players who in theory should be our ‘star’ players).

Regarding French rugby, I imagine the main factor as to why there hasn’t been a mass exodus is because it’s a completely different game/sport that the majority of NRL players have never played before. 

[redjonn]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think the not enough talent argument is often skewed and ignores other issues. There will never be enough talent to magically fill teams to the standard of the top clubs if teams don't make the necessary investment and have standards off the field.

We don't have enough big clubs investing in quality off field setups to attract talent. We don't pay young players enough for RL to be a particularly attractive career choice. We don't have enough clubs developing players like Wigan, Saints and Leeds do. It's not all about cherry picking the best youngsters and job done.

Yep I have heard this argument that their is insufficient talent to fill teams over the last decade or more.

Just think how many academy players have come through the system over that decade or more at the bigger clubs. The players let go by those big club academies and not played regular at SL maybe they would have improved immeasurably playing at that higher level.

Gosh just take one club, say Leeds, now many have been discarded  because the club have to make that judgement at a early age of development.

[The Future is League]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Especially if DB took up Dr Koukash's offer to join him at Leigh, happy days if your a Leigh fan more so if the cap and import restrictions are abolished.

If import restrictions were lifted in my opinion that would be a disaster for British Rugby League as certain clubs would abandon junior development. 

It is my opinion that ALL CLUBS in Super League should have academy teams without any restrictions, and ALL Clubs in the Championship should be allowed academy teams IF THEY WANT THEM.

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

You  do realise there are a large number of Superleague players on a relative pittance of a wage,and paying them what there worth might actually attract more talent to the game as well as making it more attractive for players who have previously decided to stay part time because of good employment.

Increasing the overseas quota should never be an option.

Yes I do realise that Dav.

So let's say the cap is increased by 30% tomorrow, how much of that do you expect to be used initially not on strengthening the team but by increasing the incumbents saleries, would 20% be a fair guess? which I do think should happen by the way.

You seem to avoid my statement that there is not enough home produced top talent to satisfy the requirements of 12 SL clubs, simply paying a player more money will not make him a better player so if as you say clubs should spend up to the cap level, where is the better talent they will be investing in going to come from?

[GUBRATS]

30 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think the not enough talent argument is often skewed and ignores other issues. There will never be enough talent to magically fill teams to the standard of the top clubs if teams don't make the necessary investment and have standards off the field.

We don't have enough big clubs investing in quality off field setups to attract talent. We don't pay young players enough for RL to be a particularly attractive career choice. We don't have enough clubs developing players like Wigan, Saints and Leeds do. It's not all about cherry picking the best youngsters and job done.

Not all , just mostly 

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think the not enough talent argument is often skewed and ignores other issues. There will never be enough talent to magically fill teams to the standard of the top clubs if teams don't make the necessary investment and have standards off the field.

We don't have enough big clubs investing in quality off field setups to attract talent. We don't pay young players enough for RL to be a particularly attractive career choice. We don't have enough clubs developing players like Wigan, Saints and Leeds do. It's not all about cherry picking the best youngsters and job done.

Totally agree Damien, but a good start would be for the RFL to invite all 35 clubs to run academies if it was within their remit, correct for the 3 clubs you mention it's not all about Cherry picking the best youngsters but the simple reason that they can do so is a fault of a system that puts to few outlets for these kids to go to.

[GUBRATS]

16 minutes ago, AB90 said:

If a teams highest paid player gets injured or is a flop then that’s unfortunate (agreed). Just like it is now and how it is in every team sport (especially salary capped sports). No really sure what your point is.

Regarding my absurd analogy, what exactly are you saying here? I assume it is ‘player X’ earns significantly less than ‘player Y’ and is subsequently upset about it. Again, I don’t really see what your point is as it happens in literally every single sport (including SL). My suggestion to ‘player X’ is to get better at your craft/job and earn a pay rise.

Yes, the £1.5m is Mickey Mouse money but my point is that SL clubs/owners can currently spend an unlimited/uncapped amount of money for the 2 highest paid players in their team (I.e no salary cap for those specific players who in theory should be our ‘star’ players).

Regarding French rugby, I imagine the main factor as to why there hasn’t been a mass exodus is because it’s a completely different game/sport that the majority of NRL players have never played before. 

Toronto , Money Bill Williams

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not all , just mostly 

That attitude is the problem.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

That attitude is the problem.

With an average conversion rate of about 15/20% it is massive 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Totally agree Damien, but a good start would be for the RFL to invite all 35 clubs to run academies if it was within their remit, correct for the 3 clubs you mention it's not all about Cherry picking the best youngsters but the simple reason that they can do so is a fault of a system that puts to few outlets for these kids to go to.

I agree Harry, as you know I would never limit academies as we do now.

[Davo5]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I do realise that Dav.

So let's say the cap is increased by 30% tomorrow, how much of that do you expect to be used initially not on strengthening the team but by increasing the incumbents saleries, would 20% be a fair guess? which I do think should happen by the way.

You seem to avoid my statement that there is not enough home produced top talent to satisfy the requirements of 12 SL clubs, simply paying a player more money will not make him a better player so if as you say clubs should spend up to the cap level, where is the better talent they will be investing in going to come from?

And like I said,you’d attract more talent to the sport by paying decent wages,there is plenty of untapped talent not currently attached to Superleague clubs,paying for it might attract it to full time RL,this constant banging on about not having enough talent is over exaggerated,it’s there,clubs just need to do some hard work in identifying it instead of bringing in a bunch of imports on big,short term contracts.

[Oxford]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

but the simple reason that they can do so is a fault of a system that puts to few outlets for these kids to go to.

This is spot on Harry. Not only that but more academies means a greater pool of development. Beyond this there is the underlying statement about the worth and standing of some clubs as opposed to others in the eyes of the RFL. The tendency to see as a measurement activity with themsemselves in the punitive Ofsted model means they're not doing a primary facillitation & mprovement role. This is counter productive and counter intuitive on so many levels it's ridiculous.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

And like I said,you’d attract more talent to the sport by paying decent wages,there is plenty of untapped talent not currently attached to Superleague clubs,paying for it might attract it to full time RL,this constant banging on about not having enough talent is over exaggerated,it’s there,clubs just need to do some hard work in identifying it instead of bringing in a bunch of imports on big,short term contracts.

OK then, let's discuss something that rankles you being Leigh and Fev, both clubs invested heavily in their playing rosters this year - and at Championship Level not SL - Fev it seemed early doors pre and the start of this season to have assembled a squad that would be hard to beat, they had got a good share of the better player's available to Championship club's, and there was not a great deal of expierenced quality home grown players available, so Leigh look outside these shores to collate a squad that can Challenge Fev this season, I will catagorically state they could not have done that from within these shores, without having to "buy" player's who are already contracted to clubs. 

Will either Leigh or Fev teams be good enough to compete in SL? If not where will they get player's from next season to compete in SL, perhaps the relegated club and those SL player's there present clubs deem to be surplus to requirement ageing or form deserted them. Whoever gets promoted has to hit the ground running, if as you say not having enough home produced talent is exaggerated there would be no problem, but we simply cannot furnish 12 teams from it, what you are talking about will take a couple of generations if not more to acheive, I well remember as will you when open age lads from our local amatuer teams would sign for pro clubs even the top clubs, but those days are well gone as you well know.

 

[Oxford]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Will either Leigh or Fev teams be good enough to compete in SL? If not where will they get player's from next season to compete in SL, perhaps the relegated club and those SL player's there present clubs deem to be surplus to requirement ageing or form deserted them. Whoever gets promoted has to hit the ground running, if as you say not having enough home produced talent is exaggerated there would be no problem, but we simply cannot furnish 12 teams from it, what you are talking about will take a couple of generations if not more to acheive, I well remember as will you when open age lads from our local amatuer teams would sign for pro clubs even the top clubs, but those days are well gone as you well know.

There's a lot in what you say Harry. I think Leigh and Fev would hit the ground runnining if they retain the bulk of their present squads.

The other telling and probably most crucial point is the huge fear of failure that leads to bad decision making, which leads to the situatuion regarding player production.

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Especially if DB took up Dr Koukash's offer to join him at Leigh, happy days if your a Leigh fan more so if the cap and import restrictions are abolished.

This is the same Koukash setting up a new club in Liverpool, and now able to buy the Bulls, as opposed to his wife, after not owning another club?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

This is the same Koukash setting up a new club in Liverpool, and now able to buy the Bulls, as opposed to his wife, after not owning another club?

You must remember the "he's got a fighting fund he wants to invest in Leigh" rumour that did the rounds?

It was, in every sense of the word, fantastic.