SALARY CAP

[pedro]

How many teams would you advocate cutting the league to at this stage?

I dont want to lose any, doesnt mean I have faith in them....I wouldnt shed a tear for a good few, there are teams in the championship ie York who are doing a better job than a good few SL teams in terms of stadium upgrades and youth development, give them tv money and they could really take off

So if we shared more central resources with them, you'd be behind that. Even though they are not, at the moment, successful in growing their own businesses or on the pitch in terms of league performance.

we already do and they arent growing....so is your solution to throw more at them and hope for the best?

[culinator]

I understand what the CAP was intended to do, i.e. save clubs from going bust.

The problem with it now is clubs can get away with not growing there brand and still compete, thats because they still can spend similar amounts (i realise some spend more than others, but not by much i think). Basically its made it so clubs only compete on field not in brand size, if brands dont grow, then in real terms they actually shrink.
All clubs i think realise this and so nobody is really that interested in growing the brand, no clubs grow and the whole sport also wont grow.

My opinion, not based on facts so much

[josie andrews]

I understand what the CAP was intended to do, i.e. save clubs from going bust.

The problem with it now is clubs can get away with not growing there brand and still compete, thats because they still can spend similar amounts (i realise some spend more than others, but not by much i think). Basically its made it so clubs only compete on field not in brand size, if brands dont grow, then in real terms they actually shrink.
All clubs i think realise this and so nobody is really that interested in growing the brand, no clubs grow and the whole sport also wont grow.

My opinion, not based on facts so much

That makes a lot of sense & IMG can see this & it’s probably why they have brought back in licensing.

[Mike]

I dont want to lose any, doesnt mean I have faith in them....I wouldnt shed a tear for a good few, there are teams in the championship ie York who are doing a better job than a good few SL teams in terms of stadium upgrades and youth development, give them tv money and they could really take off

So if we shared more central resources with them, you'd be behind that. Even though they are not, at the moment, successful in growing their own businesses or on the pitch in terms of league performance.

we already do and they arent growing....so is your solution to throw more at them and hope for the best?

My solution is to provide resources needed to actually advance. To do this within a framework where clubs are required to produce a defined and, if necessary, increasing proportion of the game's total income within a fixed period. Then to evaluate each franchise holder against that and other clearly defined franchising requirements to determine if they can continue as a franchise holder, or if their performance is sufficient to withdraw their right to represent the competition.

Without central pooling of resources, how would (say) Salford find the resources to improve their marketing, profile and therefore income potential. If they could improve their income that over the next 3-5 years it would benefit the competition overall, and that money allocated to them from the central resource would be an investment in the future of the competition overall, not Salford individually.

If TV income was sufficient to achieve both high quality playing rosters, and off field resources, then fair enough, we wouldn't need to do something like this, but it isn't.

[Mike]

I understand what the CAP was intended to do, i.e. save clubs from going bust.

The problem with it now is clubs can get away with not growing there brand and still compete, thats because they still can spend similar amounts (i realise some spend more than others, but not by much i think). Basically its made it so clubs only compete on field not in brand size, if brands dont grow, then in real terms they actually shrink.
All clubs i think realise this and so nobody is really that interested in growing the brand, no clubs grow and the whole sport also wont grow.

My opinion, not based on facts so much

I agree, we should be thinking about growing the competition's brand, not individual clubs. I believe the Hearns withdrew because central ownership was not on the table, but its one direction you can go in IMO.

[pedro]

So if we shared more central resources with them, you'd be behind that. Even though they are not, at the moment, successful in growing their own businesses or on the pitch in terms of league performance.

we already do and they arent growing....so is your solution to throw more at them and hope for the best?

My solution is to provide resources needed to actually advance. To do this within a framework where clubs are required to produce a defined and, if necessary, increasing proportion of the game's total income within a fixed period. Then to evaluate each franchise holder against that and other clearly defined franchising requirements to determine if they can continue as a franchise holder, or if their performance is sufficient to withdraw their right to represent the competition.

Without central pooling of resources, how would (say) Salford find the resources to improve their marketing, profile and therefore income potential. If they could improve their income that over the next 3-5 years it would benefit the competition overall, and that money allocated to them from the central resource would be an investment in the future of the competition overall, not Salford individually.

If TV income was sufficient to achieve both high quality playing rosters, and off field resources, then fair enough, we wouldn't need to do something like this, but it isn't.

where would the money come from? you cant use tv money as the clubs already get that and some dont even use it all for that like they should

[Mike]

we already do and they arent growing....so is your solution to throw more at them and hope for the best?

My solution is to provide resources needed to actually advance. To do this within a framework where clubs are required to produce a defined and, if necessary, increasing proportion of the game's total income within a fixed period. Then to evaluate each franchise holder against that and other clearly defined franchising requirements to determine if they can continue as a franchise holder, or if their performance is sufficient to withdraw their right to represent the competition.

Without central pooling of resources, how would (say) Salford find the resources to improve their marketing, profile and therefore income potential. If they could improve their income that over the next 3-5 years it would benefit the competition overall, and that money allocated to them from the central resource would be an investment in the future of the competition overall, not Salford individually.

If TV income was sufficient to achieve both high quality playing rosters, and off field resources, then fair enough, we wouldn't need to do something like this, but it isn't.

where would the money come from? you cant use tv money as the clubs already get that and some dont even use it all for that like they should

As I said. By pooling and redistribution. Treating the whole competition as one entity and running it as a single business. Investing where the potential for growth is the greatest.

I acknowledge that right now no one is profitable, but I'd favour at least attempting to grow the whole pie in a unified way rather than each club fighting for a bigger slice.

[pedro]

Wire,Leeds and Saints make money dont they?

[Caboosegg]

Will the cap rise either inflation this year or will clubs be expected to work with less resources.

[Mike]

Wire,Leeds and Saints make money dont they?

Great, that increases the pool that can be shared throughout the league, and they are net contributers to the organization and should be recognized as such.

I'm just not sure how pointing at teams and telling them how bad they are is going to improve things without giving them some mechanism to achieve the improvements we need. Maybe it will, and we should simply kick out 6 teams and drops to 6 plus York and featherstone?