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.
Cruncher
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:06 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by Cruncher »

thegimble posted:
Question is has the cap achieved in making the GB side better.

Answer No.

The cap is not the issue for me but Kolpak players are. Too many second rate players come over and do nothing and take a place of a possible British player to develop.

Barrett's and Lyon's of the world SL needs we do not need the over the hill player whos here for pension money.
Which is something the salary cap is partly responsible for.

In this era of tightly restricted spending (and, of course, relegation), SL clubs can't risk waiting for exciting youngsters to come of age. Wait for that to happen, and, if it happens at all, you could end up at the bottom of the table or even dropped into NL1 before you see these kids come good. Clubs want as much success as they can get in the present, hence they sign up ready-made players who've already experienced big-time action - invariably these are Kolpacs. The next problem is that, to be able to afford these Kolpacs' wages, you must unload some or all of your youngsters, or better still - taking the Wakey, Wire, Hudds, Quins etc route - don't develop any at all.

The net-result: there are less and less home-grown players, let alone stars, in the British game (and anyone who disagrees with that needs only to look at the last tour-party we sent out; what a joke!).

The solution: waive the salary cap altogether for players who are under 21. That's what the Aussies do apparently, though I'd go further. I'd waive it for any player you sign from your own Academy ... for the rest of his career, even if he turns into a high-priced superstar. That would give all our clubs a real impetus to start developing their own talent, and I can't see how it would unfairly advantage or disadvantage anyone.
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by DaveO »

Cruncher posted:
Clubs want as much success as they can get in the present, hence they sign up ready-made players who've already experienced big-time action - invariably these are Kolpacs. The next problem is that, to be able to afford these Kolpacs' wages, you must unload some or all of your youngsters, or better still - taking the Wakey, Wire, Hudds, Quins etc route - don't develop any at all.
Very true and what is more the idea that the youngsters cut from a club to save salary cap money will go on to find another club is, I suspect, a myth more often than not with many young players simply leaving the game as no professional full time contract is on offer anywhere.

Dave
100% Warrior
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:05 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by 100% Warrior »

Unfortunately it appears that the rulers of the game still believe that having a salary cap evens out the competition.

I think they are mistaken though as this may be unpopular with other clubs, but better players would still rather play for the likes of Wigan, Saints, Leeds or Hull due to their histories.

What I can't believe is that the salary cap has been reduced next season to £1.6 million so if clubs were struggling before what are they expected to do now.

At the end of the day if we're truthful we'd like a return to the days when if we saw a player who could improve the team we could go out and get him.

Those days won't return until either a player or an official from a club makes a stand and say they're not putting up with the salary cap anymore ... think we might be in for a long wait though
GeoffN
Posts: 12559
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:40 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by GeoffN »

100% Warrior posted:

What I can't believe is that the salary cap has been reduced next season to £1.6 million so if clubs were struggling before what are they expected to do now.
That's because they no longer include NI contributions in the total - it actually works out about the same amount as last season.
100% Warrior
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:05 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by 100% Warrior »

Cheers for clearing that one up for me
ragman
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:27 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by ragman »

The salary cap is a ridiculous idea, thought up by ridiculous, jealous people, and implemented in a ridiculous, incompetent way.
The idea of any other industry saying to the people working within it " No matter how successful you are, no matter how much sponsorship you can attract, no matter what crowds you can bring in, you are limited to re-investing X amount back into your main resource" is just unthinkable.
One of the main reasons originally given for the cap was to stop clubs over stretching themselves financially and risking going out of business. If this was true, it would be enought to limit clubs to paying a proportion of turnover in salary. This would still mean that success would be rewarded, and clubs could benefit from that success.
The notion that it is the responsibility of the sport's governing body to regulate competition is just as stupid. The RFL is there to regulate the rules, administer the league set-up and look after International matters. It is not its role to handicap the top clubs in a jealous effort to 'even up' competition. All it's achieving is to drive down standards, encourage short term signings of over-the-hill players, and deter clubs from developing talent.
This is not Communist Russia, and what clubs pay their players is naff-all to do with the RFL.
If DW had any balls, he'd challenge this as restraint of trade in the courts tomorrow.
And to think we kid ourselves that we will ever compete with the Aussies, when we are doing our own legs before we even start....
User avatar
WiganWarrior
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:59 am

Re: salary cap

Post by WiganWarrior »

ragman posted:
The salary cap is a ridiculous idea, thought up by ridiculous, jealous people, and implemented in a ridiculous, incompetent way.
The idea of any other industry saying to the people working within it " No matter how successful you are, no matter how much sponsorship you can attract, no matter what crowds you can bring in, you are limited to re-investing X amount back into your main resource" is just unthinkable.
One of the main reasons originally given for the cap was to stop clubs over stretching themselves financially and risking going out of business. If this was true, it would be enought to limit clubs to paying a proportion of turnover in salary. This would still mean that success would be rewarded, and clubs could benefit from that success.
The notion that it is the responsibility of the sport's governing body to regulate competition is just as stupid. The RFL is there to regulate the rules, administer the league set-up and look after International matters. It is not its role to handicap the top clubs in a jealous effort to 'even up' competition. All it's achieving is to drive down standards, encourage short term signings of over-the-hill players, and deter clubs from developing talent.
This is not Communist Russia, and what clubs pay their players is naff-all to do with the RFL.
If DW had any balls, he'd challenge this as restraint of trade in the courts tomorrow.
And to think we kid ourselves that we will ever compete with the Aussies, when we are doing our own legs before we even start....
I dont even think Wigan fans would agree with total removal of the cap and go back to the 80's when we completely dominated because Wigan could bring in the best. However it should be relaxed re youth players brought through the academy
Wigan til i Die !!!!

"Its like a game of union the ball disappears for 3-4 tackles then appears to be kicked" BBC GMR
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by DaveO »

WiganWarrior posted:
I dont even think Wigan fans would agree with total removal of the cap and go back to the 80's when we completely dominated because Wigan could bring in the best. However it should be relaxed re youth players brought through the academy
I don't think Wigan or any club would dominate if there was no cap. Several clubs are now too well run to lag behind.

People forget that even in the 80's and 90's we only once ever won all the trophies on offer so obviously other clubs won things as well. Saints have just done the same thing with the salary cap and since its inception have been along with Bradford a very successful side. In effect those two sides have dominated the competitions for about as long as Wigan did so I really don't see this as a vast improvement and certainly the salary cap not something that any Wigan fans should assume that if it were removed we would dominate again.

Despite the fact Wigan only went pro in 1991/92 and other sides had plenty of professional RL players in them, the formalisation of all the clubs being full time is in my opinion the biggest factor in stopping Wigan's dominance not the salary cap. Since that would remain even if the cap went it does not follow Wigan would dominate once again.

Dave
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by cpwigan »

The salary cap only works if the supply of young players is never ending as it is in the NRL. In Britain, quality youngsters are few and far between. Hence, the cap does not work, nor will it ever work.
User avatar
the grinch
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:17 pm

Re: salary cap

Post by the grinch »

everyone agrees the cap has worked for some clubs and not for others. but it wont be challenged any time soon so we just have to work with it and do our best.if you where to ask any fan the question is the game better with the salary cap or without it i think most would say with the cap. look what has happend with football! fans being priced out of watching there team players on massive wages corruption in transfere fees. i dont like the salary cap but to some extent it is working and without it some teams would simply go under.
dont let your victories go to your head or your failures go to your heart
Post Reply