The NHL you like to mention have a salary cap. So do the NRL and RU in the U.K. These sports seem to have no trouble with investment in the game.Mike wrote:If we go to a franchise system with salary cap now will that create investment in the game?DaveO wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 5:00 pmThe way I would do it is return to licensing and give the promoted team three seasons to get competitive.Mike wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:12 pm
How would you do it - i.e. bring a new team into the league? I think you're answer in the past is that you can't, but if we want to do this, how could we make it work?
Also, I'm interested in how the sport could attract all this new money that's gong to be required to drop the salary cap etc. Where's the incentive coming from in the current structure? If we dropped the salary cap then maybe a rich chairman would come and throw money at a specific club for personal ego reasons - maybe that's enough. IMO a whole game approach is much better. The whole sport run as one business.
The game in this country is seemingly wedded to P&R so if they went down after three seasons then that's the way it goes.
Personally I would do away with P&R and go to the franchising system completely. If clubs like Featherstone want to be in SL they have to prove they are going to bring something to SL. I have seen articles saying Fev have been SL ready for several seasons but missed out for various reasons including licensing. I am not convinced they add anything given their location but they could, if better run than the likes of Wakefield or Cas, replace one of those teams who have proved unable to offer anything in terms of increasing crowds and so on. Now granted the last time licensing was tried it was not well run at all with Wakefield surviving when even they didn't expect to and Bradford going bust about a month after having been declared financially viable but that doesn't mean its the wrong approach.
The trouble with a whole game approach (as defined by the RFL) is it's just not viable. They want so called professional leagues to operate as if P&R from one to another is straightforward and they fail to grasp relegation form SL is a financial disaster but also spreading the money as thinly as the whole game approach requires is another reason the salary cap can't increase.
Leagues like the NHL and the NRL in Australia expand by adding teams. They don't expect that new team to get relegated or any team to get relegated. They all also get a cut of the sponsorship money and don't spread it over 40 odd teams. If you went through an Expansion Draft like you suggested and then Toulouse got relegated then what happens? Another draft and if some players aren't picked up they have to up sticks from France after one season? The problem is RL is not looking to expand by adding a permanent member of the club but because it is wedded to P&R doesn't have a clue how to deal with the fact the promoted side is relegation fodder or what a financial disaster relegation is. They really do seem to turn a blind eye to the latter.
I don't think Offiash's suggestion of scrapping the cap completely is viable or even desirable but it should go up. That kind of amounts to the same thing in that it was raised to where it should be given inflation which is £2.625m few clubs could spend too it but if Fev came up with a business case saying they could and Cas could not, then under the franchise/licensing system then out go Cas. Cas want to remain in SL? Raise the revenue. The same applies to Wigan. If IL can't afford to bankroll the club to that extent and/or can't arrange lucrative enough sponsorship then maybe raising the cap would coventrate his mind and get him to realise he needs to get other backers in.
All the current salary cap does is make it easy for clubs like Cas to remain in SL and it also means it makes it easier for owners with a limit on their financial resources like IL to remain owners without having to do anything about it.
Who decides whether a new dream "adds value" when we have an organization structure that allows individual clubs to use self interest to decide a north American presence isn't a long term benefit. If the sport was centrally owned then "Barley" couldn't veto a positive.move for the whole spot that was negative for "Barley" or whoever.
A whole game perspective is needed. now.
Who decided the Seattle Kraken would add value to the NHL? Presumably those running the sport and the existing teams who agreed to the expansion to accommodate them.
You seem to be arguing against a franchise system because those running the sport here are incompetent. Well it would be the same people policing whatever system you are advocating wouldn’t it. If you are suggesting it wouldn’t then that could also be true for a franchise system.
My idea incorporates P&R despite the fact I am against it and so the existing clubs couldn’t object if the side who qualifies for promotion meets the criteria.
