Salary Cap Shenanigans

[Martyn Sadler]

https://www.totalrl.com/salary-cap-shenanigans/

[Harry Stottle]

52 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

https://www.totalrl.com/salary-cap-shenanigans/

Should imagine these figs will only increase next year, 

Sky Sports’ estimated Super League salary spend in 2024

1. Wigan Warriors – £3.1million
=2. Catalans Dragons – £3million
=2. Warrington Wolves – £3million
=4. Huddersfield Giants – £2.7million
=4. Leeds Rhinos – £2.7million
=4. St Helens – £2.7million
7. Hull KR – £2.4million
8. Leigh Leopards – £2.2million
9. Hull FC – £1.8million
=10. Salford Red Devils – £1.7million
=10. Castleford Tigers – £1.7million
12. London Broncos – £1.4million

For those who can afford the dispensations !

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Should imagine these figs will only increase next year, 

Sky Sports’ estimated Super League salary spend in 2024

1. Wigan Warriors – £3.1million
=2. Catalans Dragons – £3million
=2. Warrington Wolves – £3million
=4. Huddersfield Giants – £2.7million
=4. Leeds Rhinos – £2.7million
=4. St Helens – £2.7million
7. Hull KR – £2.4million
8. Leigh Leopards – £2.2million
9. Hull FC – £1.8million
=10. Salford Red Devils – £1.7million
=10. Castleford Tigers – £1.7million
12. London Broncos – £1.4million

For those who can afford the dispensations !

So, an average spend of £2.4 million with a the base salary cap will remain at £2.1 million.  So, plenty of use of the exemptions already in place.

For reference, the fixed cap was introduced in 2002 at £1.8 million (before that is was a % of turnover).

£1.8 million in 2002 equates to £3.24 million in 2024 according to the Bank of England inflation calculator.

[Padge]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I suspect that no more than three or four clubs have been, while the proposals have gone down like a lead balloon with the remainder, especially those who struggle to reach the salary cap limit as it stands.

So punish clubs who can spend the cap or who are succesful because lazy clubs can't be arrissed to find ways of increasing their income.

As you say, "That is the opposite of what the RFL should be doing."

[Chrispmartha]

23 minutes ago, Padge said:

So punish clubs who can spend the cap or who are succesful because lazy clubs can't be arrissed to find ways of increasing their income.

As you say, "That is the opposite of what the RFL should be doing."

Tail wagging dog

[M j M]

59 minutes ago, Padge said:

So punish clubs who can spend the cap or who are succesful because lazy clubs can't be arrissed to find ways of increasing their income.

As you say, "That is the opposite of what the RFL should be doing."

What they certainly shouldn't be doing is progressing changes agreed by a small number of clubs without the rest of the league knowing about them.

[Martyn Sadler]

56 minutes ago, Padge said:

So punish clubs who can spend the cap or who are succesful because lazy clubs can't be arrissed to find ways of increasing their income.

As you say, "That is the opposite of what the RFL should be doing."

The dividing line between the clubs is the existence or not of a wealthy owner.

Some clubs are fortunate enough to have one, while others aren't.

Bradford Bulls' demise, for example, wasn't due to mismanagement so much as the club's failure to persuade someone like the late Ken Morrison to buy the club out and invest in it.

Wigan owner Mike Danson is wealthy enough to ensure that his club recruits the best players to keep winning Super League and the Challenge Cup for as long as he retains his ownership.

The marquee player rules would allow him to recruit the best NRL stars, if he wanted to do so, paying them a potentially limitless amount and the NRL, which doesn't have a marquee player rule in its salary cap, would be powerless to stop him.

I sincerely hope that Mike recognises that another period of total domination by one club wouldn't be in the best interests of the game.

But we shouldn't have to be relying on his goodwill.

[Wakefield Ram]

2 hours ago, Padge said:

So punish clubs who can spend the cap or who are succesful because lazy clubs can't be arrissed to find ways of increasing their income.

As you say, "That is the opposite of what the RFL should be doing."

Not really. Just some clubs benefit from having very wealthy owners. Buy success, get crowds, sell more merchandise, use various exemptions, get more success...just perpetuate the same clubs winning the same trophies year after year. 

The exact opposite of what a salary cap is intended to do. 

Edited October 21 by Wakefield Ram

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The dividing line between the clubs is the existence or not of a wealthy owner.

Some clubs are fortunate enough to have one, while others aren't.

Bradford Bulls' demise, for example, wasn't due to mismanagement so much as the club's failure to persuade someone like the late Ken Morrison to buy the club out and invest in it.

Wigan owner Mike Danson is wealthy enough to ensure that his club recruits the best players to keep winning Super League and the Challenge Cup for as long as he retains his ownership.

The marquee player rules would allow him to recruit the best NRL stars, if he wanted to do so, paying them a potentially limitless amount and the NRL, which doesn't have a marquee player rule in its salary cap, would be powerless to stop him.

I sincerely hope that Mike recognises that another period of total domination by one club wouldn't be in the best interests of the game.

But we shouldn't have to be relying on his goodwill.

I'm not sure how you can say Bradfords demise wasn't down to mismanagement.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

What they certainly shouldn't be doing is progressing changes agreed by a small number of clubs without the rest of the league knowing about them.

At the proposal stage at this point.

But, yes, some appear to be more equal than others.

That said, on this issue, I don't really have a problem with the cap being tweaked so key players can earn more in Super League.

[Just Browny]

Introducing ever more random loopholes or exemptions just reduces overall understanding and people's perception of the salary cap as a fair system and one intended to support a level playing field.

Just increase the cap to a sensible rate and include everyone in it. If X team can't afford to spend full cap, so be it. Having a particular carve out for left handed players or players under 5ft8 doesn't change anything.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Introducing ever more random loopholes or exemptions just reduces overall understanding and people's perception of the salary cap as a fair system and one intended to support a level playing field.

Just increase the cap to a sensible rate and include everyone in it. If X team can't afford to spend full cap, so be it. Having a particular carve out for left handed players or players under 5ft8 doesn't change anything.

This would appear to be a better idea.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Introducing ever more random loopholes or exemptions just reduces overall understanding and people's perception of the salary cap as a fair system and one intended to support a level playing field.

Just increase the cap to a sensible rate and include everyone in it. If X team can't afford to spend full cap, so be it. Having a particular carve out for left handed players or players under 5ft8 doesn't change anything.

I think there is a sensible balance to be found.

I think the marquee player rule is good, and allows clubs to be ambitious in signing world class talent, while the club trained dispensation is also important to continue to motivate clubs to develop home grown talent without fear of losing them.

Although the latter is only fair when all Super League clubs are granted an Academy license. 

[Just Browny]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I think there is a sensible balance to be found.

I think the marquee player rule is good, and allows clubs to be ambitious in signing world class talent, while the club trained dispensation is also important to continue to motivate clubs to develop home grown talent without fear of losing them.

Although the latter is only fair when all Super League clubs are granted an Academy license. 

I can live with the club trained dispensation, that's fair. Marquee players are more debatable for me, the salary cap should allow good wages to be paid anyway. As I say, all the complexity just finds new ways for Warrington, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Catalans to spend more than the others but pretend that isn't happening.

[sweaty craiq]

I prefer the pre 90 method of win pay and brown envelopes

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

What they certainly shouldn't be doing is progressing changes agreed by a small number of clubs without the rest of the league knowing about them.

That was the interesting part of this article. I wonder what the suspicion was based on.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Introducing ever more random loopholes or exemptions just reduces overall understanding and people's perception of the salary cap as a fair system and one intended to support a level playing field.

Just increase the cap to a sensible rate and include everyone in it. If X team can't afford to spend full cap, so be it. Having a particular carve out for left handed players or players under 5ft8 doesn't change anything.

I agree. There may be an argument that it encourages the right behaviours (development etc) and may be well intended, but it does just favour those who are already strong in those areas, making it more difficult for others to catch up.

[Padge]

53 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Not really. Just some clubs benefit from having very wealthy owners. Buy success, get crowds, sell more merchandise, use various exemptions, get more success...just perpetuate the same clubs winning the same trophies year after year. 

The exact opposite of what a salary cap is intended to do. 

A salary cap will only do what you imply it is there for if everyone is spending the full cap.

If everyone isn't spending the full cap (and some are way off) you will not get a leveling, you then enter a situation where if you want leveling you have to lower the cap. If you make the cap lower then you lose more talent to the NRL or TDS.

The cap has to allow clubs to pay a competitive rate for top talent.

Can anyone confirm that only a small number of clubs have been consulted.

[ELBOWSEYE]

7 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

I prefer the pre 90 method of win pay and brown envelopes

Hmrc might need a word with you.

[M j M]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That was the interesting part of this article. I wonder what the suspicion was based on.

Probably Wigan, Saints and Warrington agreeing to make these changes without consulting Leeds and Hetherington giving Matt Shaw a call to complain.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, M j M said:

Probably Wigan, Saints and Warrington agreeing to make these changes without consulting Leeds and Hetherington giving Matt Shaw a call to complain.

Shaw presented it positively, it's Sadler's suspicion that this was three or four clubs consulted.

[JohnM]

You don't have to be wealthy to create a successful club.  Love him or dislike him (moi?) Beaumont has made Leigh successful compared with the clubs lower in the league. Yes, he may be well off but he's not in your Dave Whelan league, I believe. Ditto the guy at Wakefield. What Beaumont has done is drive forward, combining the roles of owner, MD, CEO, CFO, COO and more maybe. If he can do it, so can others, so should others, so must others. The bad ones should not be able to hold the good ones back.

Edited October 21 by JohnM

[binosh]

Honestly in my opinion if the elite 12 clubs in SL are not spending full cap they should have their grading adjusted accordingly. Marquees should be optional. 

[JohnM]

I'm available as a paid non-playing player to help absorb money to help any club wishing to reach the salary cap, so avoiding any grading adjustment.

[EagleEyePie]

I'm genuinely not sure what the solution is when it comes to the salary cap. The proposed changes will only serve to strengthen those who are already in a strong position and the teams whose owners are willing to cover the clubs losses. I mentioned on another salary cap thread that the cap has been flawed from the start and has never effectively promoted a level playing field because all things were not equal to start with.

On the other hand, if the sport doesn't appear progressive it's absolutely screwed. We can't afford for the narrative to be one of stagnation or, even worse, cutbacks. There has to be a sense of ambition. Covid has caused havoc for those clubs who don't have a wealthy owner but does that really mean you have to drag everyone back as a result given so many clubs weren't even operating at the salary cap to begin with?

The suggestion of a separate salary cap for overseas players just seems counterintuitive. There's only so much talent available in this country and when it comes to young players in concentrated in the academies of a small number of clubs. How do the other teams compete if you limit the opportunities of finding talented players from elsewhere. It's not as simple as 'just improve your academy' as the odds (and the money) is already stacked in favour of the bigger clubs. If you want competition you can't afford to limit your talent pool.