Has the Salary cap failed

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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...

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saints haven't been extremely strong, but we need to look at why people want even comps. It is so that we go into seasons/games with uncertainty and the feeling that anyone can win any game. Now I think that's a fanciful aim, but having unpredictability is seen as a great thing.

So if we look at the last decade, and ask "have we had uncertainty?" my personal answer would be yes.

The regular season has seen 7 different teams lift the Shield.

- Huddersfield finished top of SL for the first time in 2013. Two years later we saw Leeds finish top with THAT try at Hudds. A year later we saw Wire take it from Hull FC in a winner takes all clash at the KC. 2017 saw an unbelievable run from Cas to finish top. Wigan topped the table for the only time in the last 10 years in 2020, before history was made with Catalans becoming the first French team to top the table.

The Grand Final has seen dominance from Saints in recent years, with the last four wins, adding to their one from 2014. Leeds and Wigan have picked up the other five between them. But, in that time, we have seen Catalans, Wire, Cas, Salford all put their challenge in, meaning 7 different teams have played at Old Trafford. We have had variety.

The Challenge Cup has seen an outstanding decade. 9 different match-ups. 5 games decided by one score. A historic win for Catalans amongst them.

If one of the purposes is to create variety, unpredictability and interest - I'd argue that there has been plenty of that over the last decade.

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

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. 

 

 

I mean, that just isn't true.

The decade prior to this one saw Saints win only 1 SL title, 4 LLS and 4 Cups. So they actually won fewer titles than this decade which for some reason you describe as a fallow period.

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The SC has no bearing on a youngsters decision on which professional club to join. At that age pretty much every club offers a near similar financial package. Youngsters (or rather their families advising them) look at the wider benefits of the clubs like;

Does the club have a funded academic programme,

Does the club have good facilities and coaching to develop my game,

Does the club have a clear pathway to progress through the age groups and be given a chance to take a 1st team place,

What is their player welfare system like.

 

Part of the reason the 'bigger' clubs attract so many of the top youngsters is because they have invested and offer a more rounded package to these youngsters.

You missed out ' Snob value ' down the pub 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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. 

For a club like Warrington it really is that simple yes. They have the facilities, they have the financial backing to implement a full pathway system, what they don't have is the current mindset to consistently bring their youngsters through into the 1st team and give them time.

In some respects Warrington is the perfect example of what not to do in order to bring sustained success. I've mentioned Riley Dean for this year and for next year when Matat'utia's contract is up they should promote Wrench to the No 3 shirt (assuming he recovers fully from his injury from last year). But you can almost guarantee that even if Matat'utia leaves they'll go out and buy another centre and leave Wrench as a bit part squad player. So they had the chance to embed Dean into the 1st team this year and have the opportunity to embed Wrench in next year. That's how the most successful clubs do it, they have a system for promoting them a few at a time, and eventually you end up with a core squad of home grown players and a good conveyor belt. Nobody is saying just throw in all the youngsters now, that would be daft, but Wire don't look like they have any sort of system at all.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[S.T.I.D.]

27 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I find that both amazing and a bit sad STID

 

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.

 

 

I think it around 6 games in that SKY actally quoted the standard of rugby was poor, seem to remember Leeds and Warrington were being shown nearly every week and they were riding at the bottom of the league with some dull as dishwater rugby.  We then had players faking injury every week in epidemic proportions and it felt as though it was in some clubs coaching manuals to get an unfair advantage instead of rugby skill.  Referees were inconsistent as ever and we have a shortage of officials this season.  THe RFL disciplinary was eventually deemed not fit for purpose and the RFL seemed to have their head in the sand about it. Salford was the shining light towards the end of the season with entertaining rugby but overall many clubs were very inconsistent. Standards of coaching were poor, Hull-Warrington-Catalans-Wakefield were pretty abysmal.

[Tommygilf]

54 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that Saints haven't been extremely strong, but we need to look at why people want even comps. It is so that we go into seasons/games with uncertainty and the feeling that anyone can win any game. Now I think that's a fanciful aim, but having unpredictability is seen as a great thing.

So if we look at the last decade, and ask "have we had uncertainty?" my personal answer would be yes.

The regular season has seen 7 different teams lift the Shield.

- Huddersfield finished top of SL for the first time in 2013. Two years later we saw Leeds finish top with THAT try at Hudds. A year later we saw Wire take it from Hull FC in a winner takes all clash at the KC. 2017 saw an unbelievable run from Cas to finish top. Wigan topped the table for the only time in the last 10 years in 2020, before history was made with Catalans becoming the first French team to top the table.

The Grand Final has seen dominance from Saints in recent years, with the last four wins, adding to their one from 2014. Leeds and Wigan have picked up the other five between them. But, in that time, we have seen Catalans, Wire, Cas, Salford all put their challenge in, meaning 7 different teams have played at Old Trafford. We have had variety.

The Challenge Cup has seen an outstanding decade. 9 different match-ups. 5 games decided by one score. A historic win for Catalans amongst them.

If one of the purposes is to create variety, unpredictability and interest - I'd argue that there has been plenty of that over the last decade.

I will say that perhaps I'm being a tad pedantic and I'm certainly affected by the bias of my own club being one of the 3.

Ultimately on the one hand I think its great that we have Leeds, Wigan and of course St Helens to essentially act as gatekeepers for the honours available in this country. To win any of them you'll have to go up against at least one of these 3 directly. That is good because it keeps the top of the sport honest.

However on the other hand, the current system, which the cap is the main instrument of, allows for next to no way to consistently challenge that hegemony without some serious value for money penny squeezing. We should be encouraging clubs to try to overtake those 3, instead we seem to bake in their advantages and con everyone into thinking this is fair.

[Oxford]

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

I think it around 6 games in that SKY actally quoted the standard of rugby was poor, seem to remember Leeds and Warrington were being shown nearly every week and they were riding at the bottom of the league with some dull as dishwater rugby.

Yes Sky match selection was a thing of the past but those two teams in a period of transition were never going to be an example of declining standards either.

 

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

We then had players faking injury every week in epidemic proportions and it felt as though it was in some clubs coaching manuals to get an unfair advantage instead of rugby skill.

I'm not altogether sure about this point and it's not one of my abidng memories from last year.

I think you're quoting Warrington alot but all that says is It wasn't their year.

Injuries are nothing to do with standards.

I don't get why you think coaching standards have declined.

 

 

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

For a club like Warrington it really is that simple yes. They have the facilities, they have the financial backing to implement a full pathway system, what they don't have is the current mindset to consistently bring their youngsters through into the 1st team and give them time.

In some respects Warrington is the perfect example of what not to do in order to bring sustained success. I've mentioned Riley Dean for this year and for next year when Matat'utia's contract is up they should promote Wrench to the No 3 shirt (assuming he recovers fully from his injury from last year). But you can almost guarantee that even if Matat'utia leaves they'll go out and buy another centre and leave Wrench as a bit part squad player. So they had the chance to embed Dean into the 1st team this year and have the opportunity to embed Wrench in next year. That's how the most successful clubs do it, they have a system for promoting them a few at a time, and eventually you end up with a core squad of home grown players and a good conveyor belt. Nobody is saying just throw in all the youngsters now, that would be daft, but Wire don't look like they have any sort of system at all.

If the players are good enough, they can do well at Wire. Surely if Wire were discarding top quality players, they'd be going on to have great careers elsewhere? They arent. 

Great, you're giving Dodd the chance in the first team. Well so did we with O'brien and Parton if we are talking halves. They both played a lot of games for us. Both ended up similar to Richardson for you. 

The reason the likes of Saints can put more youngsters in is because the infrastructures in place brings through the best youngsters. Wire are not ignoring top quality talent. 

Your point about Wrench doesn't make sense, he has had plenty of game time until I jury, he's a good example of us bringing talent through, and previously it was Toby King in that position. 

This isn't a blind defence of Wire, I'm very happy to criticise when appropriate, but people just saying all we need to do is play them are misguided. 

[Oxford]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We should be encouraging clubs to try to overtake those 3, instead we seem to bake in their advantages and con everyone into thinking this is fair.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

But it is a lead balloon argument on here; far too many people who believe systems are always fair and anyone who doesn't rise to the top it's because of their own inadequacies. Which has alway been amazingly seductive for a completly stupid idea.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Oxford

[yipyee]

3 hours 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. 

They are for year 1 and think 50% for year 2

[Toby Chopra]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I will say that perhaps I'm being a tad pedantic and I'm certainly affected by the bias of my own club being one of the 3.

Ultimately on the one hand I think its great that we have Leeds, Wigan and of course St Helens to essentially act as gatekeepers for the honours available in this country. To win any of them you'll have to go up against at least one of these 3 directly. That is good because it keeps the top of the sport honest.

However on the other hand, the current system, which the cap is the main instrument of, allows for next to no way to consistently challenge that hegemony without some serious value for money penny squeezing. We should be encouraging clubs to try to overtake those 3, instead we seem to bake in their advantages and con everyone into thinking this is fair.

 

44 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I will say that perhaps I'm being a tad pedantic and I'm certainly affected by the bias of my own club being one of the 3.

Ultimately on the one hand I think its great that we have Leeds, Wigan and of course St Helens to essentially act as gatekeepers for the honours available in this country. To win any of them you'll have to go up against at least one of these 3 directly. That is good because it keeps the top of the sport honest.

However on the other hand, the current system, which the cap is the main instrument of, allows for next to no way to consistently challenge that hegemony without some serious value for money penny squeezing. We should be encouraging clubs to try to overtake those 3, instead we seem to bake in their advantages and con everyone into thinking this is fair.

There are some inbuilt advantages as has been described, but I think we can overstate the effect. 

For me it still comes down to money, as most aspiring clubs still have cap room, especially marquees. They just don't have the funds to spend. 

If everyone was maxed out, and there was still a big disparity, then youd have to look at some creative solutions. 

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Couldn't have put it better myself.

But it is a lead balloon argument on here; far too many people who believe systems are always fair and anyone who doesn't rise to the top it's because of their own inadequacies. Which has alway been amazingly seductive for a completly stupid idea.

Its all parties however, for slightly different reasons, most of them don't want or can't spend more money. The structure relies on a majority of parties supporting it.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

 

There are some inbuilt advantages as has been described, but I think we can overstate the effect. 

For me it still comes down to money, as most aspiring clubs still have cap room, especially marquees. They just don't have the funds to spend. 

If everyone was maxed out, and there was still a big disparity, then youd have to look at some creative solutions. 

Realistically though, how much money isn't being invested because of the Cap?

If I wanted to invest £100k into say Castleford every year, I guarantee that money will be spent on increasing the salaries or current players who are paid under their market value, and overpaying for others. As @whatmichaelsays put so well, an £80k player at Wakefield might be a £60-70k player at Leeds.

That wouldn't be a problem if Wakey or Cas could spend more than Leeds if they chose to, but even if they could, they can't.

So our hypothetical investor doesn't invest in said Super League team...

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Realistically though, how much money isn't being invested because of the Cap?

If I wanted to invest £100k into say Castleford every year, I guarantee that money will be spent on increasing the salaries or current players who are paid under their market value, and overpaying for others. As @whatmichaelsays put so well, an £80k player at Wakefield might be a £60-70k player at Leeds.

That wouldn't be a problem if Wakey or Cas could spend more than Leeds if they chose to, but even if they could, they can't.

So our hypothetical investor doesn't invest in said Super League team...

And similarly promoted clubs face similar obstacles in that they can't really outspend the clubs at the bottom of SL so we are left with the status quo that is SL. If a Derek Beaumont wants to spend big money and £1 million more than Wakefield to stay in Super League then he should be able to.

[Magic Superbeetle]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

And similarly promoted clubs face similar obstacles in that they can't really outspend the clubs at the bottom of SL so we are left with the status quo that is SL. If a Derek Beaumont wants to spend big money and £1 million more than Wakefield to stay in Super League then he should be able to.

Isnt that literally what the marquee rule is for?

[Toby Chopra]

39 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Realistically though, how much money isn't being invested because of the Cap?

If I wanted to invest £100k into say Castleford every year, I guarantee that money will be spent on increasing the salaries or current players who are paid under their market value, and overpaying for others. As @whatmichaelsays put so well, an £80k player at Wakefield might be a £60-70k player at Leeds.

That wouldn't be a problem if Wakey or Cas could spend more than Leeds if they chose to, but even if they could, they can't.

So our hypothetical investor doesn't invest in said Super League team...

But by that logic no-one would ever invest anything in non-big 5 clubs as it wouldn't be worth it. But we know that they do.

Sometimes it works on the pitch - see Salford and Hudds - but still doesn't increase crowds. Which is a different problem for potential investors. 

But clubs like Cats and KR have seen sustained investment over the years - within cap rules - and grown their crowds and club. 

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that investors would pile into smaller clubs if only they were allowed to blow Leeds out of the water. It would be a lovely problem to have but I don't think that's what holding back the sport. 

[Toby Chopra]

35 minutes ago, Damien said:

And similarly promoted clubs face similar obstacles in that they can't really outspend the clubs at the bottom of SL so we are left with the status quo that is SL. If a Derek Beaumont wants to spend big money and £1 million more than Wakefield to stay in Super League then he should be able to.

I think the problems facing newly promoted clubs are well known and don't ultimately stem from the cap, but having to build a team at short notice from whatever's left. 

That said, I'd be open to some kind of cap flexibility in year 1 if it helped even the playing field, but I doubt the other clubs would agree. 

It may not matter soon anyway if the changes coming are as bold as some suggest. 

[Tommygilf]

54 minutes ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

Isnt that literally what the marquee rule is for?

On 2 players? 

[Damien]

4 hours ago, Magic Superbeetle said:

Isnt that literally what the marquee rule is for?

No

[Damien]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

On 2 players? 

Exactly. Frankly I think the marquee rule is a waste of time and is just an excuse not to materially raise the salary cap. 2  players does not dramatically improve a squad and does little to improve the standard of the competition as a whole.

It certainly does not help any promoted club and in isolation cannot be used to attract true marquee players. That is because such players would have to be paid something so out of line that it is not worth the risk and money to any club. Even if they were prepared to do that the competition isn't attractive enough to attract anyone close to a true marquee player.

If anything the marquee rule is just another mechanism that suits the stronger, bigger clubs that already have strong squads and can better appeal to players. It also allows them to retain their existing better players by paying them a little more. It does nothing though to level the playing field and never will.

[yipyee]

8 hours ago, Red Willow said:

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.

Just for balance saints couldn't hold onto grace but he left for Union

Saints couldn't keep Thompson, he went to NRL

Kev retired then went to NRL

Coote and fages are the only other 2 that went without being pushed and stayed in SL but saints knew Dodd and welsby were good replacements waiting in the wings.

If there was no cap would Saints have a stronger squad and 3 less defections away from SL ?!

 

On Salford they were on the verge of administration and Koukash left a side that got to a GF and CC final. Love him or hate him he saved and then turned Salford around. His main failure was removing the academy looking for a short term fix by diverting all funds and efforts into the first team.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

But standards for sky don’t mean that. It means crowds, audience figures and demographics. Early 2000’s they had Bulls vs Leeds, big crowds with a buzz around the sport and a sport with a good demographic mix of supporters plus annual tri nations or games vs Australia. 

Now they have fewer big games, an aging fanbase and zero internationals. 

Football is really the only thing keeping the lights on at sky sports , the rest of us are filler. 

Hull vs Hull KR is good, if next year we just lock in the French Toulouse vs Catalan would be another (Not on Thursday night) . But sport needs to get that buzz back.

I will argue this on two points first it was a post in reaction to using the Sky deal as a measure of falling standards on the pitch. This was largely based on certain clubs being picked who were not at their best and more to do with their previous.

If RL has an aging fan base it is very much more likely to stay home and watch the match on TV.

Part of the problem of putative falling standards is no one takes into account the fear of relegation as a primary factor and the influence of Oz style play and both lead to a curious conservative approach and nullifying excitement out of the game. The sport does need "BUZZ" there's no question of that. However, if you only get buzz at Derbies then other questions need to be asked, like: how do you get that derby feeling into all matches? What elements do they have that can be copied?

 

[Oxford]

57 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

You ideally want everyone to have an enemy.

I think this is spot on and every game should include an element of this kind of marketing.

 

57 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I think you sell the sport on the derby games

Although fans of both sides of a derby are revved up and have this as a focus it's an obsession I think is a bit negative. To hold up the derbies in this way may mean a good crowd that match but what does it say about all the others. There is something a bit odd about possibly finishing bottom, maybe being relegated but finding some satisfaction in beating one opponent in particular.

I can't see this as a whole game marketing strategy but you could put it to the marketing group on here, they may have a different view, 99.99999% of the time they do.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Oxford

[Oxford]

17 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because to casual fans they are the ones that look the most impressive on tv and that is the impression the wider audience will have of the sport.

I get that part of your argument though I've seen no evidence of this and the wider audience. Any one from the outside of the game watching would be taken along with the usual atmosphere but a strategy has to be way more than that and way more than a couple of matches in th fixture list.