Has the Salary cap failed

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

It takes decades of work, I agree. Getting lots and lots of development officers is the only way. 

We can succeed, if the entire game reaches for it.

I see 3 main problems. Frist, our player pool is too small, and so it is easy for a small cabal to get a choke hold over it. Though, as we saw last year with Peet’s petulance over losing Nicholson, that cabal do not welcome competition. We can get numbers back to where they were in areas which have formerly developed players. I believe that we could abolish the cap, or at least vastly increase it, without endangering clubs. 

Second, we are paying far less than the competition, and that always results in a lack of talent. Which adversely affects everything. The first point can partly address that - call it the Ajax approach - while I would argue that at this point we have absolutely nothing to lose giving it a whirl. What’s the worst that can happen - a single club winning the league over and over again?? 

Third, as to Saints’ domination. The first 2 play into that, but in addition other clubs have to be better. Saints have the best juniors (see above on player pool), but they have the best coaching, recruitment and retention policies, and the best board, which almost certainly feeds into the rest. They are also very good at making sure that the gross cap goes as far as it possibly can when turned into net income. There is nothing stopping other clubs - someone mentioned FC on this thread - seeking to match them at least. It will take hard work and time - looking at the competitors and the length of contracts their players are signed up for, I can see no one save perhaps for the all new Wolves getting close to Saints till 25, absent some calamitous injuries in Glassdom. 

I actually think that, from Wigan’s perspective, Saints’ endless domination is a good thing, as it requires us to look at ourselves in a way that, maybe, an era of FC success wouldn’t. But when our overseas spots include Mago, Miski and Ellis, it’s clear we are a long way behind. 

I agree with much of this - but I'd go back that we have become so obsessed with home-grown players (for understandable reasons) that we have loaded the deck too much in favour of clubs that are benefitting from things done decades ago. Historic advantages that could literally never be overtaken simply with hard work and investment.

Agree on many of the other things you highlight like making smart decisions at the top.

[Oxford]

Apart from the fact we can't agree on its purpose we can't seem to find any common ground about whether it's worked or not.

If the salary cap was not intended to prevent players leaving to go to other sports it's not really good evidence to say that's why it failed.

And you could just as easily argue that RL clubs attempts to keep costs down might have done this without a salary cap.

The crucial lesson on finance is there for all to see in K&C.

Players will still leave even if the SC is done away with.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Oxford

[S.T.I.D.]

15 hours ago, yipyee said:

With St helens dominating for the last 4 years is this proof the salary cap has failed and should it be raised or removed altogether ?

I very much doubt it, first and foremost Saints RLFC are a very well run rugby club and in reality have cut their cloth to meet the restrictions of the Salary Cap.  They have done this by having a very good Academy set up and are very astute in recognising talent in the lower leagues to develop in the clubs structure.  We see so many clubs with a large turnaround of players season after season which is costly and at times a waste of salary cap, this only produces instability and reduces the standard of product.  The RFL has to take some blame, dumbing down our game dragging down the top clubs to the lower clubs instead of the other way around, "framing of the future" model ended up as a farce and has created apathy. You could say the "Best Rugby Team in the World" at the moment is probably not far off as the "Best Run Rugby League Club in the World" as well, its not a rich club but its a template for other clubs to emulate to raise standards. Raise standards and the product has more value and the salary cap will grow in worth.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

If the salary cap was not intended to prevent players leaving to go to other sports it's not really good eveidence to say that's why it failed.

 

 

On this point, I don't think that is true.

You could have introduced an SC to deliver sustainability, and whilst it could be a success in that area, unintended consequences could ultimately make the SC a failure and harmful to the sport.

[ELBOWSEYE]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On individuals, we saw Croft as MoS last year, Field getting most of the headlines throughout the season. Welsby obviously was excellent. We probably had Williams as England's best in the WC (if it was Union he would be a huge star with his international performances imho), Makinson is great and a former Golden Boot winner. 

At our club, we have Dufty who could be box office, and in reality the likes of Ashton should be a star right now - I think he'd be better of going to a different club though. We see the same at all clubs, there are players who should absolutely be box office.

Of course none of that changes the overall point that we have fewer than in previous years - I agree with that point - but I think we have some fabulous players in RL, particularly in comparison to other similar sports.

I agree on every one of the players named, and with the comparison with other sports but its players who are known outside of our sport, the last english player who did this was Sam Burgess, if you talk of players who transend the sport more people away from RL would know Hanley, Offiah and the ones coaching union. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

11 minutes ago, S.T.I.D. said:

I very much doubt it, first and foremost Saints RLFC are a very well run rugby club and in reality have cut their cloth to meet the restrictions of the Salary Cap.  They have done this by having a very good Academy set up and are very astute in recognising talent in the lower leagues to develop in the clubs structure.  We see so many clubs with a large turnaround of players season after season which is costly and at times a waste of salary cap, this only produces instability and reduces the standard of product.  The RFL has to take some blame, dumbing down our game dragging down the top clubs to the lower clubs instead of the other way around, "framing of the future" model ended up as a farce and has created apathy. You could say the "Best Rugby Team in the World" at the moment is probably not far off as the "Best Run Rugby League Club in the World" as well, its not a rich club but its a template for other clubs to emulate to raise standards. Raise standards and the product has more value and the salary cap will grow in worth.

I agree with everything, save only that they are hugely wealthy indeed. Take a look at the eye watering losses they have incurred without blinking an eye. They keep very quiet about that, and trade astutely on the “our dominance is against all the odds compared to others’ bad dominance” - we should add their PR department to the list of things they do best. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

Oh, and if I was in sole control, I would make all ex union or Welsh or even French players played by English clubs players outside the cap. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I agree on every one of the players named, and with the comparison with other sports but its players who are known outside of our sport, the last english player who did this was Sam Burgess, if you talk of players who transend the sport more people away from RL would know Hanley, Offiah and the ones coaching union. 

Yeah, I think that's a bit of a red herring. If we think about say 15 years ago when our Cap and exchange rate allowed us to have better quality players, those players still weren't in the mainstream. So again, I'd argue that the root cause here sits way outside of the salary cap - we do have players who are talented enough to appeal to non-RL fans - we are just dire at getting them out there! Hopefully that will change...

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Oh, and if I was in sole control, I would make all ex union or Welsh or even French players played by English clubs players outside the cap. 

Don't we have something like that for Union players? I recall us having something in place when we signed Burrell from Union.

But I agree with your overall point on this - when we look at us having fewer stars, I know it is pretty much a lifetime ago now, but many of the 'stars' from when I first started watching were from Australia on short term deals, and Union. We shouldn't forget that we used to see the likes of Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Les Boyd, Peter Sterling, Phil Blake and loads of others, plus Jonathan Davies, Scott Gibbs, Scott Quinnell, Tuigamala etc. who all added greatly to our game.

RL is worse off for not having those channels open to us for various reasons, not just cash.

[Magic Superbeetle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Don't we have something like that for Union players? I recall us having something in place when we signed Burrell from Union.

But I agree with your overall point on this - when we look at us having fewer stars, I know it is pretty much a lifetime ago now, but many of the 'stars' from when I first started watching were from Australia on short term deals, and Union. We shouldn't forget that we used to see the likes of Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Les Boyd, Peter Sterling, Phil Blake and loads of others, plus Jonathan Davies, Scott Gibbs, Scott Quinnell, Tuigamala etc. who all added greatly to our game.

RL is worse off for not having those channels open to us for various reasons, not just cash.

We do. "New talent pool" players (aka Union players) are; 

0% on the salary cap for their first full year

50% on the salary cap for the second full year

100% on the salary cap for the third full year onwards.

Also, any players whom leave for union for 5 years (ie Kyle Eastmond) are also subject to the "returning player pool" which is exactly the same. I think league and union are now so specialised however that it takes SBW players to be able to transition to both fluidly, and many of the players SL teams could target in union are far below that standard. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

10 minutes ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

We do. "New talent pool" players (aka Union players) are; 

0% on the salary cap for their first full year

50% on the salary cap for the second full year

100% on the salary cap for the third full year onwards.

Also, any players whom leave for union for 5 years (ie Kyle Eastmond) are also subject to the "returning player pool" which is exactly the same. I think league and union are now so specialised however that it takes SBW players to be able to transition to both fluidly, and many of the players SL teams could target in union are far below that standard. 

Thanks. I do wonder though whether we have pushed enough on these as sources. I remember Kevin Ellis, who was a superb league player, and brought masses to the game, but was not as far as I can recall, a top line union player. If SL/RFL sat down with the WRL and FFRL and looked into who might be available and who might make it, and worked up a plan, in 5/6 years we could have more competitive Welsh and French teams. And the NH game would be much much stronger as a result. Honestly, I see that as win win win and a relatively easy one. 

[Saint Toppy]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Nobody has ever been able to articulate how any club can overtake Saints, Wigan and Leeds with their legacy youth pathways. I'd argue it's impossible to overtake decades worth of benefits that have built up.

 

There has never been anything standing in the way of any club developing a youth pathway system like Saints, Wigan & Leeds have done. While they were investing heavily in that system many other clubs were paying it 'lip service', bringing through the odd good 1st team player but never really having that conveyor belt.

But having a pathway is only part of the route to success, it goes all the way to the top and the 1st team coach. Historically throughout the SL era Saints, Wigan & Leeds have had coaches who have not only been prepared to give their youngsters a chance, but also been prepared to stick by them and give them the time to try and establish themselves as 1st team regulars. Some have worked out and some haven't, that will always be the case, but so many clubs are either reluctant to give them a chance in the first place unless they absolutely have to because of injuries, or are too quick ditch them if they don't bring instant success. The 3 clubs show a tremendous amount of loyalty towards their youngsters (and is probably a big reason why those clubs are so attractive for a youngster to join in the first place), and when a 1st team squad place becomes available their first thought is who from our juniors can step up and take that shirt, not, who can we bring in to fill that shirt.

As a couple of examples;

Look at the career of Jonny Lomax. His early career was beset by injury after injury and for years he could barely string a set of games together, but the club persevered with him and look where he's ended up. It does make you think that had he started out at another club would he ever have been given the opportunity to get to where he is now ?

Another example is Warrington and their signing of Drinkwater this year. They have Riley Dean, a very promising youngster who's come through their junior system. They already have one international half back in Williams so you'd have to question the mindset of the club why they would bring in a pretty average Aussie like Drinkwater and not give the opportunity to Dean to play alongside Williams and learn his trade at SL level ? Contrast this with Saints who when they knew Fages was leaving elected to give the No 7 shirt to Dodd. He's a year younger than Dean and had little 1st team experience, but still Saints chose to give him the chance first and not just buy in another half back. Similar at Wigan they've given the No 7 shirt to Smith, another young, untested player rather than bring in a 7 from outside.

Just a couple of examples, but it demonstrates that some clubs have a different mindset when it comes to juniors, starting from when they first sign them right through to their 1st team opportunities.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[Oxford]

56 minutes ago, S.T.I.D. said:

Raise standards and the product has more value and the salary cap will grow in worth.

There is plenty of evidence that on the whole standards seem to be rising, on and off the pitch and this has neither led to SC growth nor a greater product value.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Oxford

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

There has never been anything standing in the way of any club developing a youth pathway system like Saints, Wigan & Leeds have done. While they were investing heavily in that system many other clubs were paying it 'lip service', bringing through the odd good 1st team player but never really having that conveyor belt.

But having a pathway is only part of the route to success, it goes all the way to the top and the 1st team coach. Historically throughout the SL era Saints, Wigan & Leeds have had coaches who have not only been prepared to give their youngsters a chance, but also been prepared to stick by them and give them the time to try and establish themselves as 1st team regulars. Some have worked out and some haven't, that will always be the case, but so many clubs are either reluctant to give them a chance in the first place unless they absolutely have to because of injuries, or are too quick ditch them if they don't bring instant success. The 3 clubs show a tremendous amount of loyalty towards their youngsters (and is probably a big reason why those clubs are so attractive for a youngster to join in the first place), and when a 1st team squad place becomes available their first thought is who from our juniors can step up and take that shirt, not, who can we bring in to fill that shirt.

As a couple of examples;

Look at the career of Jonny Lomax. His early career was beset by injury after injury and for years he could barely string a set of games together, but the club persevered with him and look where he's ended up. It does make you think that had he started out at another club would he ever have been given the opportunity to get to where he is now ?

Another example is Warrington and their signing of Drinkwater this year. They have Riley Dean, a very promising youngster who's come through their junior system. They already have one international half back in Williams so you'd have to question the mindset of the club why they would bring in a pretty average Aussie like Drinkwater and not give the opportunity to Dean to play alongside Williams and learn his trade at SL level ? Contrast this with Saints who when they knew Fages was leaving elected to give the No 7 shirt to Dodd. He's a year younger than Dean and had little 1st team experience, but still Saints chose to give him the chance first and not just buy in another half back. Similar at Wigan they've given the No 7 shirt to Smith, another young, untested player rather than bring in a 7 from outside.

Just a couple of examples, but it demonstrates that some clubs have a different mindset when it comes to juniors, starting from when they first sign them right through to their 1st team opportunities.

It's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

I mean it suggests that all clubs have to do is just play the youngsters and they'll be great and we'll all be as good as Saints. Saints release a hell of a lot of youngsters, and sign a hell of a lot of players too. 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

How exactly? Genuine question. How do Salford ever overtake Saints' development pathway? Can decades of headstart ever be pulled back? 

Well that's a strong argument and you only have to look at the Aussies for the other screaming example.

But it's not just a matter of SRD copying Saints because that's to ignore the whole nature of the differences.

Also I loved it when we had RU players but that had to do with the splash in the media as much as anything else and although those of us who can remember the wonderful players involved the sobering things would be how much they'd cost now and recalling how many failed completely. Handy thing memeory.

 

[Tommygilf]

The Cap is far too low now to work as intended. It stunts growth both from our smallest and biggest clubs.

Ideally we'd have a free market which dictated that clubs could generally compete freely for talent and invest in areas they deem most worthy. Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but that said, how much difference is there between our top 6 or so clubs? Even then, a well backed club like Leigh should be able to enter the league with a degree of confidence about finishing mid table on the first attempt - so low is the level of expenditure required atm. Furthermore, how much extra investment could come into the sport if more money was needed to be competitive?

The cap has felt to me growing up with it like an increasingly anachronistic component of a solution to a problem that is entirely of our own making. I agree wholeheartedly with comments that the big clubs like it because it keeps costs down and the smaller spenders like it because it keeps them in touch. 

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

St Helens are clearly the strongest club around at the moment, however the last decade is quite interesting.

LLS - a good measure of success. Saints have won 4 LLS. We have had 7 different winners in the last 10 years. That's more than the previous 10 years.

Grand Finals. Saints have won 5, We've had 3 different winners. It's disappointing that more of those LLS winners didn't manage to win the GF (including my own team!) - but they contributed to excellent finals in many cases.

Challenge Cup - Saints have won 1. We've had 6 different winners.

 

So overall Saints have clearly been very successful, and for a sustained period of time, but we do have a decent level of variety across British RL. We don't need to be quite so negative based on the fact Saints are on a great run right now.

So out of 30 trophies Saints have won 10, so 1/3 of them. Thats not really as bad as some are trying to make out it is.

[S.T.I.D.]

33 minutes ago, Oxford said:

There is plenty of evidence that on the whole standards seem to be rising, on and off the pitch and this has neither led to SC growth nor a greater product value.

I,m thinking the opposite especially in Superleague very little evidence of improving standards, excluding Saints you might get 1 or 2 clubs doing well like Huddersfield and Salford over the last 2 seasons but overall still poor standard.  SKY recognised that and  valued the product accordingly, the only postive is the Channel4 games have been more entertaining than the SKY ones and the commentary have given the game a better profile. We,ve lost Toulouse and Catalan are not looking a stronger oufit than the past, Leeds, Wigan and Hull are looking fairly average but it does look like Warrington have the right balance for "this is our year" at long last.

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Oxford said:

 

But it's not just a matter of SRD copying Saints because that's to ignore the whole nature of the differences.

 

 

I think this is much of my argument Oxford. People seem to believe that others just don't try as hard. And there will be some examples of that, but it's too simplistic an explanation imho.

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, dkw said:

So out of 30 trophies Saints have won 10, so 1/3 of them. Thats not really as bad as some are trying to make out it is.

It isn't but, given that there are 12 or so serious competitors for those 30 trophies, to have a third to 1 club does stand out. Especially so when Leeds and Wigan have 14 of the remaining 20...

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

But it hasn’t been cyclical has it. In the last 25 years Saints have won twice as many prizes as Wigan. Leeds were the best grand final winners during a golden generation, but even then Saints were the best week in week out team over most years. 

The dominance of New England on the NFL through the Brady error was based very much on the fact he wasnt taking the large contracts that other quarterbacks were taking. The dynasty was built on the fact they all wanted success and took smaller contracts to do so. Thats was the whole squard ethos, when someone got too big they moved them on and brought in someone else on less to make that work. 

The only reason I mention that is to show that a cap can be manipulated. Arguably Leeds was similar in that they could all have pushed for bigger contracts but wanted to stay together. 

The cap is too low yes, has it failed? I dont think looking at Grand Final winners is the silver bullet people make it.. its much more complicated than that.. all in though I dont think its working as it should but part of that is that it isnt used like it should and caps are very very difficult to work properly in a league with relegation IMHO.

[hw88]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think what St Helens have done is rather than blow other teams out of the water, they have shown an outstanding level of consistency. Their lows have never been too low - in fact they have never finished below 5th in the ladder. If we look at their main rivals Wigan and Leeds have both had rough patches, and Bradford have had a disastrous fall from grace. The likes of Wire, Catalans, Hull FC, Hudds have teased the top of the table for short spells, but fallen away. 

There is an interesting table on wiki though which shows all results over a 25 year period, and they sit top, as you'd expect, but only 27 wins ahead of Wigan - around 1 win more per year on average.

Saints have made the various sorts of play-offs every year since 1965!

[Exiled Wiganer]

27 minutes ago, dkw said:

So out of 30 trophies Saints have won 10, so 1/3 of them. Thats not really as bad as some are trying to make out it is.

They have won 30 trophies since 1996, and are likely to be up to 32 by the end of the year. That is more than twice the next successful (Wigan and Leeds), and vastly more than the rest combined. The 10 year stat distorts it because it includes Saints’ only fallow period in the last 25 years. 

 

31 minutes ago, dkw said:

So out of 30 trophies Saints have won 10, so 1/3 of them. Thats not really as bad as some are trying to make out it is.

 

[Red Willow]

On the whole it seems the cap has functioned as intended, Saints released players as they couldn't have held on to them. Same for most of the top clubs. Wigan didn't retain Hastings, some players went to Oz. 

it feels as if talent is better distributed especially looking at the clubs represented in the recent world cup. It felt as if we had more players to select.

it is a whole different argument about whether the amount of the cap is correct. The cap is higher in Australia but Saints still won. We should have rises or reviews of the levels.

Salford aspire to spend the cap but it was a disaster when Koukash threw "money" at the squad. he managed to assemble a bunch of guys but hardly classed as a team. he also threw money at a coach and the ones fans considered initially as the cheap option have worked miracles.

[Oxford]

22 minutes ago, S.T.I.D. said:

I,m thinking the opposite

I find that both amazing and a bit sad STID

 

22 minutes ago, S.T.I.D. said:

SKY recognised that and  valued the product accordingly

It's far more likely that Sky valued soccer and wanted to use the bulk of their monies in that direction and away from other sports.

And it is also true to say  just because they're a long time partner that their valuation should be taken as sound or even made in good faith.

There is also a very good argument based on their reductions in offers that they simply see RL as a pushover and easy meat, this seems far more accurate.

Using Sky as a source of evidence for poorer standards does not have much traction.

On the whole standards of coaching, fitness and skill levels seem much better than in the past.