Hattons Solicitors Banner
RedVee Merchandise At CraftyTees.co.uk
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Salary Cap Changes.

  1. #1
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,864
    Rep Power
    14

  2. #2
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,153
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Sounds nice when he says it, but it's just not feasible. Super League is heading in the right direction finally after so long trying. And they are about to blow it.

    Sure, the standards are very low, the top clubs have been dragged down to the level of the bottom clubs, but that's all part of the fun. You've now got a league that is getting to the stage where it's like the NRL, you just cannot predict where several of the sides will finish. Sure, you can bet Widnes will be adrift at the bottom, Wigan at the top. But Warrington being bottom after 5 games, Saints being 10th? No one would have predicted that. You could finally end up with another side winning the competition this year, Hull or Cas are both capable.

    What would increasing the cap do? Would players come over from Union? No, the decent players certainly wouldn't. Would quality NRL players give up playing in the world's best rugby competition to play in Super League? No, but perhaps the quality of imports might increase slightly. But all it would mean is those clubs with money would get stronger, the rest would be cut adrift. Cas's rise would be over, it would be Warrington, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Hull spending far more than the other clubs and we'd be back to the usual story of the haves and the have nots.

    The problem for Super League isn't as simple as increasing the cap to stop player drain and attract better players. There just isn't the commercial profile and income coming into the sport to sustain an increase or to make it universally adopted across the league. Letting Warrington, Wigan and Leeds spend more isn't going to improve the competition is it. And how many of those clubs can realistically increase their spending anyway? Do any of the top Super League clubs make a genuine profit these days? I know we don't, Wigan don't (Unless they are getting a bigger cut of the stadium income as they offer to move their games for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs).

  3. #3
    Learning All The Songs yogi bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,464
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    Sounds nice when he says it, but it's just not feasible. Super League is heading in the right direction finally after so long trying. And they are about to blow it.

    Sure, the standards are very low, the top clubs have been dragged down to the level of the bottom clubs, but that's all part of the fun. You've now got a league that is getting to the stage where it's like the NRL, you just cannot predict where several of the sides will finish. Sure, you can bet Widnes will be adrift at the bottom, Wigan at the top. But Warrington being bottom after 5 games, Saints being 10th? No one would have predicted that. You could finally end up with another side winning the competition this year, Hull or Cas are both capable.

    What would increasing the cap do? Would players come over from Union? No, the decent players certainly wouldn't. Would quality NRL players give up playing in the world's best rugby competition to play in Super League? No, but perhaps the quality of imports might increase slightly. But all it would mean is those clubs with money would get stronger, the rest would be cut adrift. Cas's rise would be over, it would be Warrington, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Hull spending far more than the other clubs and we'd be back to the usual story of the haves and the have nots.

    The problem for Super League isn't as simple as increasing the cap to stop player drain and attract better players. There just isn't the commercial profile and income coming into the sport to sustain an increase or to make it universally adopted across the league. Letting Warrington, Wigan and Leeds spend more isn't going to improve the competition is it. And how many of those clubs can realistically increase their spending anyway? Do any of the top Super League clubs make a genuine profit these days? I know we don't, Wigan don't (Unless they are getting a bigger cut of the stadium income as they offer to move their games for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs).
    What a load of tripe,

    If your happy watching competitive rugby played by average players then I'd suggest you follow the amateur game.

    To not increase the salary cap in 18 years has just dragged everyone down to a very poor standard - but the most frustrating thing for me is the fact that the Sky money just about covers the salary cap so any team can spend the full amount.

    This means that teams like Saints and Wigan/ Leeds etc with 10k+ attendances (even more before KC) are getting no reward what so ever for running a good standard club in a decent ground with big investment in youth policy - compared to say Wakey just plodding along in a dump stadium - picking up scraps from other teams and a few imports and not going anywhere.

    For me the cap should be increased - not necessarily in money terms, but BIG dispensation for club trained players (eg only 60% counts on the cap). Maybe then we would have a back row with Greenwood and Savelio instead of Dad's army

  4. #4
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,071
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Wont affect us anyway, we must have loads of room on the cap.

    If this current side is anywhere close to occupying the cap limit then somebody needs sacking.

  5. #5
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    LP North Stand, wheelchair area
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    Wont affect us anyway, we must have loads of room on the cap.

    If this current side is anywhere close to occupying the cap limit then somebody needs sacking.
    Isn't it precisely because the cap is so low in comparison with rival competitions that we have this side?

  6. #6
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    5,071
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen07 View Post
    Isn't it precisely because the cap is so low in comparison with rival competitions that we have this side?
    Doesn't mean that they should be paid up to the cap though, does it?

    The cap has barely changed over many years, if we used to operate to the cap with players like Long, Scully, KC, Newlove, Joynt etc all in the same side then the current set of players should be paid what they are worth based on quality, which is less than the above side.

    This means that there will be people in the current team being paid the same wages as what Long, Scully etc etc were being paid. This can not be right.

  7. #7
    Learning All The Songs Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    1,976
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyl View Post
    Doesn't mean that they should be paid up to the cap though, does it?

    The cap has barely changed over many years, if we used to operate to the cap with players like Long, Scully, KC, Newlove, Joynt etc all in the same side then the current set of players should be paid what they are worth based on quality, which is less than the above side.

    This means that there will be people in the current team being paid the same wages as what Long, Scully etc etc were being paid. This can not be right.
    The cap hasn't stayed the same in real terms, though. Taking inflation into account, the cap circa 2000 was about 3m in today's money.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    446
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    To be successful under the cap you need to know when to cut dead wood from the squad. Something we are severely lacking in.

  9. #9
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I remember going to a forum around the time Lyon was about to depart. The pannel, which consisted of a couple of up and coming players, non of which are still with the club, where asked about what the loss of such a player meant to the club. The general reply was "good, there might be a bit more money for the likes of us"
    If the same happens these days, you're going to get home grown players at the wrong end of of a huge pay gap, which means good players leave...

    ...Andre and Joe

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Learning All The Songs The.Reverand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,063
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    I think the issue with Greenwood and Savellio relate more to the way they were being utilised rather than the money they were on. Cunningham appears to equal his coaching skill with that of man management.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Windle
    Posts
    312
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    The cap hasn't stayed the same in real terms, though. Taking inflation into account, the cap circa 2000 was about 3m in today's money.
    This!!!

    I've said this before, but let's say we had the team of 2006, now. We would have to sell/let go most of them to stay under the cap. You'd need a cap of around 2.5-3million to afford the players we had back then. We used to be able to afford Waitrose, now we're digging round the oops shelf in Asda.

  12. #12
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    288
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    If we increase the salary cap, the current players will all get pay rises. Very little extra cash will be available for new players. But Owens and Peyroux will get a new flash car. And then Wakefield and Leigh will go bust. Again

  13. #13
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,262
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KelCloset View Post
    If we increase the salary cap, the current players will all get pay rises. Very little extra cash will be available for new players. But Owens and Peyroux will get a new flash car. And then Wakefield and Leigh will go bust. Again
    Wigan haven't got a stadium to sell either.

  14. #14
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Windle
    Posts
    312
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KelCloset View Post
    If we increase the salary cap, the current players will all get pay rises. Very little extra cash will be available for new players. But Owens and Peyroux will get a new flash car. And then Wakefield and Leigh will go bust. Again
    I've heard this said a few times but why would they? Clubs will only pay the minimum they can, they're not gonna give pay rises all round.

  15. #15
    Learning All The Songs Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    1,976
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Some players would get pay-rises, but those would only be players that the club wanted to keep.

    As for clubs going bust, I don't think it would be too difficult to couple any increase in the cap with safeguards against overspending, if that was felt to be necessary.

    There's no doubt that the evenness of the competition would suffer. I suppose it boils down to whether you would rather have a close competition or a quality competition.

  16. #16
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,816
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    Some players would get pay-rises, but those would only be players that the club wanted to keep.

    As for clubs going bust, I don't think it would be too difficult to couple any increase in the cap with safeguards against overspending, if that was felt to be necessary.

    There's no doubt that the evenness of the competition would suffer. I suppose it boils down to whether you would rather have a close competition or a quality competition.
    I think the fairest system is having a cap based on your income, as it used to be, but with an absolute limit still. This would allow the more successful clubs to stretch themselves a bit, within their means, without completely overwhelming everyone else, but also keep the spending of the lower clubs in check. I don't think you can have a one size fits all approach when income levels between top and bottom are significantly different. You can't cater for everyone with the current system - you're either holding clubs back or making it impossible to compete for half the league

  17. #17
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Buddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    9,870
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KelCloset View Post
    If we increase the salary cap, the current players will all get pay rises. Very little extra cash will be available for new players. But Owens and Peyroux will get a new flash car. And then Wakefield and Leigh will go bust. Again
    Name one thing that has improved without changing. If they dont look to change the sport soon it will die. It is incredibly naive to suggest we cant grow in case someone goes bust.

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    Noooobie
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    I think the fairest system is having a cap based on your income, as it used to be, but with an absolute limit still. This would allow the more successful clubs to stretch themselves a bit, within their means, without completely overwhelming everyone else, but also keep the spending of the lower clubs in check. I don't think you can have a one size fits all approach when income levels between top and bottom are significantly different. You can't cater for everyone with the current system - you're either holding clubs back or making it impossible to compete for half the league
    Well, you can because that's pretty much how the NFL do it. Practically all the money earned is shared around all the teams. The principle bring that it's in the interests of all to have a sustainable setup where teams can plan for the future and there's genuine parity.

    Agree with your last statement. The current setup is a halfway house that just doesn't work. Either you go full revenue sharing, or scrap the cap and let the big teams dominate. Really it becomes down to the Wigans, Wires, Saints, Leeds etc to decide which is best long term. Do you subsidise Wakey et al and hope a competitive league attracts more fans, or do you dominate and hope the die hards will fill the stands?

  19. #19
    Learning All The Songs Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    1,976
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by is84 View Post
    Well, you can because that's pretty much how the NFL do it. Practically all the money earned is shared around all the teams. The principle bring that it's in the interests of all to have a sustainable setup where teams can plan for the future and there's genuine parity.

    Agree with your last statement. The current setup is a halfway house that just doesn't work. Either you go full revenue sharing, or scrap the cap and let the big teams dominate. Really it becomes down to the Wigans, Wires, Saints, Leeds etc to decide which is best long term. Do you subsidise Wakey et al and hope a competitive league attracts more fans, or do you dominate and hope the die hards will fill the stands?
    I don't see why it has to be one extreme or the other.

  20. #20
    WARNING! PIE EATER!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,268
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parrsaint View Post
    Wigan haven't got a stadium to sell either.
    Oh yes they have, and building land for housing is in BIG demand at present. They also own a part share in Central Park but I don't think that would be sold, maybe just part exchanged

  21. #21
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    488
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Who manages and allocates Salary Cap monies? RFL or Sky? Anyone know where you can find Salary costs for Redhall and individual salaries and structures?

  22. #22
    In The South Stand Paul Newlove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Are the players worth a salary cap rise? I mean there's no harm in a bit of a rise (1.8m to 2m if that's what it still is) but look how well England RU are doing would Union take many League players now probably the NRL would take punts on raw talent like the Greenwood deal .
    There's only Percival worth taking from Saints. The standard of the backs in the RU premiership is very high, all strong quick players now.

  23. #23
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    1,585
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    I think the fairest system is having a cap based on your income, as it used to be, but with an absolute limit still. This would allow the more successful clubs to stretch themselves a bit, within their means, without completely overwhelming everyone else, but also keep the spending of the lower clubs in check. I don't think you can have a one size fits all approach when income levels between top and bottom are significantly different. You can't cater for everyone with the current system - you're either holding clubs back or making it impossible to compete for half the league
    Most sensible post of the thread.

    I'd also like to see any increase in the Cap being conditional on clubs running a full reserve side. Hetherington and his self-interested cabal of Yaaarksherists oppose this (Leeds abuse the duel reg thing with their pet club Batley) and, because the RFL is a Yaaarksher-biased organisation (which is not fit for purpose IMO), they kow-tow to Hetherington & his funny-accented bully-boys.
    #baainthatnumber

  24. #24
    Moderator Div's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sintellins
    Posts
    10,536
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    I think looking at increasing the salary cap is a total red herring. For whatever reason the average standard of players available simply isn't what it was. For me it can only be that the potential pool of players playing the sport has diminished. Simply having more money to pay out wouldn't suddenly improve the quality of the competition. A HUGE increase in the cap might enable clubs to attract the odd player at hi speak from the NRL but I still think they would be few and far between. I have no exactly seen a mad exodus of top quality players from RL to either RU or the NRL. Yes, we have lost a few but few were genuine superstars. (James Graham the last one?)

    The other aspect is can the clubs afford to pay more? I suspect the majority of clubs are probably lossmaking as it stands without having an increased wage bill.

    Some may disagree but I thing those pointing at the frozen salary cap as a reason for declining standards are barking up the wrong tree.

  25. #25
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    1,585
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Div View Post
    I think looking at increasing the salary cap is a total red herring. For whatever reason the average standard of players available simply isn't what it was. For me it can only be that the potential pool of players playing the sport has diminished. Simply having more money to pay out wouldn't suddenly improve the quality of the competition. A HUGE increase in the cap might enable clubs to attract the odd player at hi speak from the NRL but I still think they would be few and far between. I have no exactly seen a mad exodus of top quality players from RL to either RU or the NRL. Yes, we have lost a few but few were genuine superstars. (James Graham the last one?)

    The other aspect is can the clubs afford to pay more? I suspect the majority of clubs are probably lossmaking as it stands without having an increased wage bill.

    Some may disagree but I thing those pointing at the frozen salary cap as a reason for declining standards are barking up the wrong tree.

    I tend to agree with you - and it's all down to coaching. I'm not saying coaching standards are bad, because I think they've almost certainly improved. But techniques & gameplay that are being coached have changed, to reflect changes to the professional game, principally the increased focus on big guys hurling themselves at each other, wrestling & dicking about at the PTB, and ultra-organised defensive patterns. The biggest reduction in quality for me has been in the halves. There's little ball-playing skill these days, with scrum half regularly being played by hookers, second rowers, loose forwards, full backs. It's because the game has become obsessed with peripheral detail like field position, hitting the ground correctly, 'middles & edges', overly-structured sets of 6 (eg, backs run the first 3 tackles from first receiver, etc). Players are too often coached to play to a set pattern, not what's in front of them, and as a result they either never learn to think for themselves, or get out of the practice of doing so. The result is that nobody's concentrating on either the actual overall game being played or the spectacle it provides.

    The game IMO is going backwards. Yes, Cas are a breath of fresh air, but I see them as more the anomaly - and they wouldn't have looked that special & exciting even 10/12 seasons.
    #baainthatnumber

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •