Tommygilf Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 11 minutes ago, Dunbar said: The playing field has been leveled for two decades with a ridiculously low salary cap and yet the best teams are still the best teams. Some clubs are not spending to the cap as it is... how will they climb up? That is because the cap is so low. If you're being paid peanuts, you may as well be winning. That of course applies to academy level players too. Even if a club does pay enough to tempt a player away from the top sides, then that compromises their spending in other aspects. Alongside a general raising of the cap to keep up with the times, there are a number of things the sport could look at that have been tried and utilised in other sports too. Essentially you give lower achieving organisations structural, if not sporting, advantages. 1st draft picks, more wind tunnel testing time, a temporarily increased cap are examples of these. Some are pretty extreme, but they are designed to break pretty ingrained failure circuit loops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 Rich investors? Whatever happened to Probiz? Wasn't there an saying along these lines? How do you make £1 million out of a football club? Start with £10 million. Dave Whelan had REAL wealth, not "house of cards " wealth that disappears under scrutiny or a gentle breeze. Forgive my ignorance, but where is he now? Also, in the past, we seem to have had our share of shallow-pocketed chancers trying to look bigger than they are, no depth, no resilience to changing circumstances. Didn't this apply to Bradford at one time? Toronto? Who can forget Michael Knighton and his "take-over" of Man U, or those so very club investors in it purely for the stadium real estate? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 11, 2022 Share Posted September 11, 2022 22 hours ago, Tommygilf said: That is because the cap is so low. If you're being paid peanuts, you may as well be winning. That of course applies to academy level players too. Even if a club does pay enough to tempt a player away from the top sides, then that compromises their spending in other aspects. Alongside a general raising of the cap to keep up with the times, there are a number of things the sport could look at that have been tried and utilised in other sports too. Essentially you give lower achieving organisations structural, if not sporting, advantages. 1st draft picks, more wind tunnel testing time, a temporarily increased cap are examples of these. Some are pretty extreme, but they are designed to break pretty ingrained failure circuit loops. I would be delighted to see the cap raised and I have stated a few times that even if the cap had just kept place with inflation the £1.8M salary cap in 2002 would be at least £2.8M today and not £2.1M. But let's not kid ourselves. Increasing the cap today would just increase the gap between the best teams in the league and the rest. The best run clubs are also the best teams and these would be the one's spending more... extending the gap not reducing it. All teams have access to two marquee spots. Where are the big name signings that these two spots offer. We could literally offer Tom Trbojevic, Latrell Mitchell or James Tedesco as much money as they wanted and no-one is bringing them over. It's all well ad good providing these exceptions but no-one is taking advantage of them. 1 "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted September 11, 2022 Share Posted September 11, 2022 24 minutes ago, Dunbar said: I would be delighted to see the cap raised and I have stated a few times that even if the cap had just kept place with inflation the £1.8M salary cap in 2002 would be at least £2.8M today and not £2.1M. But let's not kid ourselves. Increasing the cap today would just increase the gap between the best teams in the league and the rest. The best run clubs are also the best teams and these would be the one's spending more... extending the gap not reducing it. All teams have access to two marquee spots. Where are the big name signings that these two spots offer. We could literally offer Tom Trbojevic, Latrell Mitchell or James Tedesco as much money as they wanted and no-one is bringing them over. It's all well ad good providing these exceptions but no-one is taking advantage of them. True. My thoughts are that a Leigh or similar would come in and mix things up. Likewise if you were allowed to spend more, Leeds and Wigan etc would have to because they would compete with eachother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 11, 2022 Share Posted September 11, 2022 57 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: Likewise if you were allowed to spend more, Leeds and Wigan etc would have to because they would compete with eachother. I would be ok with that. I would be very happy with Leeds, Saints & Wigan (and other well managed clubs) spending more on their squads - bringing star players from Australia, maybe even a cross code player or two. But this isn't allowing the others to climb up as you say, it will take the top teams further away. But after two decades of a stupidly low salary cap not having the desired effect I would be happy to see some injection at the top end. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 11, 2022 Share Posted September 11, 2022 23 minutes ago, Dunbar said: I would be ok with that. I would be very happy with Leeds, Saints & Wigan (and other well managed clubs) spending more on their squads - bringing star players from Australia, maybe even a cross code player or two. But this isn't allowing the others to climb up as you say, it will take the top teams further away. But after two decades of a stupidly low salary cap not having the desired effect I would be happy to see some injection at the top end. The cap now includes two marquee players for clubs with money. Plus a few ways to not count players full wages on the cap that didn’t exist on the original cap. So for some clubs I doubt it’s far off moving with inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted September 11, 2022 Share Posted September 11, 2022 1 minute ago, bobbruce said: The cap now includes two marquee players for clubs with money. Plus a few ways to not count players full wages on the cap that didn’t exist on the original cap. So for some clubs I doubt it’s far off moving with inflation. Agreed. There are ways for clubs to spend more on star players. In fact with the marquee rule, they could spend far more if they had the wherewithal. The fact that ubs don't implies that they don't have the money. There is a chicken and egg conversation with the cap. Soke would argue individuals don't invest in Rugby League because you can't buy success while others will point to the marquee rule and suggest it was there if needed. I would be happy to raise the cap but it is 100% going to be beneficial for the clubs that are already making the finals every year. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted September 11, 2022 Share Posted September 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Dunbar said: Agreed. There are ways for clubs to spend more on star players. In fact with the marquee rule, they could spend far more if they had the wherewithal. The fact that ubs don't implies that they don't have the money. There is a chicken and egg conversation with the cap. Soke would argue individuals don't invest in Rugby League because you can't buy success while others will point to the marquee rule and suggest it was there if needed. I would be happy to raise the cap but it is 100% going to be beneficial for the clubs that are already making the finals every year. I’m sure the owners of the top clubs are quite happy just to be a bit in front of most of the league. They then just have to battle it out with each other for the trophies. The key in RL is to somehow drag the other clubs up to keep pushing the top clubs. Which is why Catalans and potentially Toulouse are so important as they are clubs that could out spend those top clubs. Catalan as it stands and Toulouse potentially. Then you get a team like Salford who manage to do it on a shoe string. That usually doesn’t last without the money as the big boys will just come and take your best players or coach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now