Salary Cap

Got a hot rumour from a source inside the club, or just something you heard down the pub? Then what are you waiting for, post it on The Rumour Mill.
Wintergreen
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Wintergreen » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:44 pm

Well imo RL has 2 choices.

1. Stick with the cap and RL will slowly but surely wither, die, and become insignificant. All the talent will bypass RL and go straight to RU e.g. George Ford and Owen Farrell.

2. Scrap it and RL "may" grow stronger, or it may hasten it's decline.

Either way at least 2. gives it a chance.

User avatar
wall_of_voodoo
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Salary Cap

Post by wall_of_voodoo » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:07 pm

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:55 pm
What i would say is if the sport would capitulate without the cap then maybe its time to let it die because it will never grow
100% agreed.

If austerity is the only way for our game then we have an amateur sport in all but name
I'm a better fan than you
Because I don't "Boo"!!!

We never lose any games
We just don't win them (always the refs fault anyway)

moto748
Posts: 2078
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by moto748 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:15 pm

I agree. Scrapping the SC is no panacea, but it looks like on balance it would do more good than harm. Increasingly, the status quo doesn't look a long-term feasible option.

DaveO
Posts: 14047
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by DaveO » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:00 pm

You don’t have to scrap the cap completely to make a difference. Allowing players to earn money from their image rights and it not count on the cap would be a huge boost.

I think quite a few will have seen the picture of Canberra’s four English players imitation the Beatles crossing a road? Nice bit of publicity that and while I doubt they got paid for it the point is there is no incentive for any player to promote the game in the UK.

As soon as they did if they got paid it would count on the cap so the last thing clubs want is them advertising anything even if it is the game itself.

As to the pay the wife/girlfriend to get around the cap I am absolutely certain this does NOT go on. Why? Because it’s against the rules and is specifically mentioned in the salary cap rules.

If any club were daft enough to do it all it would take is one disgruntled ex player or disgruntled spouse blowing the whistle and the club would be in very hot water. Or even letting it slip inadvertently.

We only just avoided a two point penalty for a technical breach of the cap of a measly £15k. A mistake essentially. What sort of penalty do people think a club would receive for such a deliberate and calculated breaking of the cap such as paying a wife/girlfriend like this?

jao 711
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:00 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by jao 711 » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:49 pm

shaunedwardsfanclub wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:45 pm
If a players wife was getting paid to play RL, do you think that should be counted on the salary cap? Do you think it is against the spirit of the cap?

I remember when someone posted that we should pay someone’s wife to work at the JJB to get round the cap!
Mor than one Aussie club has tried employing wives etc and been caught.It is A deliberate attempt to beat the rules . If we have a salary cap, enforce it, if not ,scrap it.

ragman
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:27 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by ragman » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:13 pm

If we must have a salary cap, and if the original reason given for having it i.e. to protect teams from going bust is genuine, then simply set the cap at a percentage of turnover.
Teams have a real incentive to grow and secure income, players can benefit from image rights etc, and the game can compete with other sports. It's unbelievable that RL has hobbled itself with the current arrangements.

Wintergreen
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Wintergreen » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:10 am

ragman wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:13 pm
If we must have a salary cap, and if the original reason given for having it i.e. to protect teams from going bust is genuine, then simply set the cap at a percentage of turnover.
Teams have a real incentive to grow and secure income, players can benefit from image rights etc, and the game can compete with other sports. It's unbelievable that RL has hobbled itself with the current arrangements.
You see that was the orignal intention of the cap, or at least that which was publically cited.

It soon became something else. It was used to prevent the "big" clubs from dominating and to keep the "smaller" (Yorkshire ) clubs "competitive"".

Even the SKY commentators looked at the table one year, saw that teams were pretty close together and quipped that the "Salary Cap was doing it's job".

Add to this chairmen who took the cap to be a "maximum expenditure risk" for them, and suddenly there was no voice in favour of revoking it. It was too useful to those who held onto the power.

In truth the only people who didn't (and still don't) benefit from the cap are:

1. The players (obviously)
2. The spectators who see a game played by a decreased talent pool.

Even within group 2. there are those supporters of the "smaller" teams who are more concerned with stopping the likes of Wigan than seeing quality RL.

moto748
Posts: 2078
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by moto748 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:14 pm

Wintergreen wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:10 am



Even within group 2. there are those supporters of the "smaller" teams who are more concerned with stopping the likes of Wigan than seeing quality RL.
That's a pretty selective way of looking at it. Fans of teams like Wakey, say, want to see their team do well and be competitive. nothing wrong with that. So would you, in their shoes.

The SC reminds me a bit of the old arguments about grammar schools v comprehensives. You are all in favour of grammar schools if you think your Jemima is going to be in the 20% that get there, and screw the others. Likewise. if you support one of the 'big' clubs, you are going to be all in favour of scrapping the SC if you think your chairman is going to dip into his pocket and make some star signings (Wigan fans shouldn't be holding their breath there, though!).

That said, I don't think the SC as it is at present is satisfactory. It should be raised considerably, and third party payments allowed. And it should be inflation-linked. But none of that overcomes the basic issue of lack of money in the sport. If we did increase the SC considerably, how many clubs would spend it all? It's difficult, cos really it's a chicken and egg situation.

DaveO
Posts: 14047
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by DaveO » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:53 pm

moto748 wrote:
Wintergreen wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:10 am



Even within group 2. there are those supporters of the "smaller" teams who are more concerned with stopping the likes of Wigan than seeing quality RL.
That's a pretty selective way of looking at it. Fans of teams like Wakey, say, want to see their team do well and be competitive. nothing wrong with that. So would you, in their shoes.

The SC reminds me a bit of the old arguments about grammar schools v comprehensives. You are all in favour of grammar schools if you think your Jemima is going to be in the 20% that get there, and screw the others. Likewise. if you support one of the 'big' clubs, you are going to be all in favour of scrapping the SC if you think your chairman is going to dip into his pocket and make some star signings (Wigan fans shouldn't be holding their breath there, though!).
That is a poor analogy in my opinion. There is a finite number of places in grammar schools so it doesn’t matter how bright you are, there is a finite number of places at the “top”. Remove the salary cap and any team can spend what it likes, not just the top 20%. Koukash could take over a team tomorrow and they’d instantly be up there with the big spenders. Entry to the top echelon is not limited by a limited number of places.

What the SC does is allow clubs with no income other than sky money to be competitive in theory. For owners who can’t generate a higher income or afford to subsidise there club more, it allows them to continue to be owners. If that means because that is not enough cash to attract and retain the best players then the league ends up of a poorer standard which is where we are.
That said, I don't think the SC as it is at present is satisfactory. It should be raised considerably, and third party payments allowed. And it should be inflation-linked. But none of that overcomes the basic issue of lack of money in the sport. If we did increase the SC considerably, how many clubs would spend it all? It's difficult, cos really it's a chicken and egg situation.
That is indeed the ultimate problem and why small clubs do not want it raised as only a small number could pay more.

I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious Wigan under IL are now in that group who could not afford to pay more.

IL sees the need to raise the cap but he will only support it if the sport gets a new tv deal that pays the clubs more cash. I think this is why he went ballistic when the RFL didn’t put SL TV rights out to tender.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

w.thomas
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:57 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by w.thomas » Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:20 pm

Even within group 2. there are those supporters of the "smaller" teams who are more concerned with stopping the likes of Wigan than seeing quality RL.
[/quote]

What I find funny these days is that these so called smaller clubs sign better players than us! Look at the likes of wakefields pack compared to ours. IL was mad for the marquee rule but now just wants to sign bargain basement players on hitchens wages. It's not good enough for a big club like ours

Post Reply