SALARY CAP

[josie andrews]

Post by Mike » Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:31 pm

the pieman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 4:14 pm

nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:56 pm

Wes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:46 pm

RE cap, if every team had to spend a minimum of 90% it would bring bottom teams up, as it is it brings top teams down.

Force clubs to spend money they don’t have?

all clubs should have money to spend up to the cap - or should have done prior to the new TV deal
Sky basically paid the equivalent of 2.1million to each SL club, and therefore they should have been made to use that money on 1st team salary cap, but clearly, several clubs didnt / dont

Even if the sky money has now dropped to a lower level, the clubs should be forced to use that to pay as much as they can on 1st team player salaries

as many have said (many times previously too), the tail wags the dog when it comes to RL, and thus we are always defined by the lowest denominator, not the highest and its time that changed

if the Sky money equates to 1.5mill, then that should all be paid as salaries, the rest needs to be made up by the club, if they are going to pay up to the cap, but they cant not use TV money

So the clubs that can't afford to use the whole TV money on salary should be kicked out and go bust I suppose?

These are all very principled arguments, but we don't live in a world where there's money sloshing around, or interest from large corporations wanting to chuck sponsorship at us (meds). How do we operate now, in order to improve our competition and get to the point where we're in demand for TV and sponsorship deals?

I'd argue you can't do that with 3-4 "big clubs" and no realistic competition outside of that group. Someone's going to compare us to the Premier league now I imagine, but we're just not in the same position as that league in any meaningful way.

IMO centralising the finances of the whole organisation makes a lot of sense. I think the Hern's wanted to do something like this - i.e. own everything, but weren't able to

[josie andrews]

nathan_rugby » Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:49 am

Wes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:51 pm

nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:56 pm

Wes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:46 pm

RE cap, if every team had to spend a minimum of 90% it would bring bottom teams up, as it is it brings top teams down.

Force clubs to spend money they don’t have?

TV deal covers most of the cap for SL clubs so yes they do have the money to spend 90%.

If teams can’t spend the cap then what’s the point in it? Should be scrapped if that’s the case so the clubs who have can spend what they like

Just because the tv deal covers the salary cap doesn’t mean the club can afford to spend it all.

I am absolutely for changes to the league and structure but throwaway statements are just fantasy

[Wigan_forever1985]

Personally i think Rugby League should just roll the dice and scrap the cap - whats the worst that can happen? people will no doubt point to clubs going bust but clubs do that already or 1/2 clubs running away with it - that happens already

the cap hasnt stopped any of the things it was designed to stop but what it has done is each year reduced in quality.

There is no logic in someone with money like the good Dr coming into rugby league as they cant turn around a small team into a big team, the whole system from the league to off the field is designed like a peloton to keep everyone in a close coasting bunch

You have to take the brakes off, if the sport dies because only 2 teams can afford to invest then it was never sustainable anyway.

Football have financial fair play which everyone games but its there and it allows teams to be as big as they want to be - it even makes it sensible to bring a big signing in to get your merchandise sales up etc. What it does do is set a platform where you can succeed in the sport but you need money - this makes people seek money investors drive up sales of merch and crowd sizes.

City are setting a benchmark and the others have to come to that level or face not winning so clubs like Man Utd are falling behind and they cant drag city down, the league isnt going to punish city for being dominant its on Man Utd to up their game and thats the way sport should be

[Wiganer Ted]

If clubs are going to go bust then they will salary cap or not.

As for creating a "level playing field", we have still only have four teams who've won the GF. Whether some club is going to breakthrough who knows but at present it doesn't look like it.
Do away with the cap then someone like Dr K at Salford who was prepared to bankroll his club to winning trophies come into the game and win silverware.
Bankrolled clubs win things others do not and that is the reality. It's not a new reality but has been like that for some time.

[pedro]

Mike » Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:26 pm

pedro wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 3:30 pm

Mike wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:45 pm



Pool all income into a central fund and reallocate - treat the game as one business, not a set of competing businesses trying to put one another out of business. Licencing is one step towards this, the next step is a pooled merchanising strategy and finances. I know some people will say this in unfair and the teams that make no effort benefit from the teams that do, but those teams are extremely resource constrained so how are you going to get them to "invest" more in marketing unless you give them more resource? This way everyone is pulling in the same direction. If wigan sell more shirts it benefits the whole league, if cas sell more after a good season it also benefits everyone. Doesn't have to be 100% even distributions, there can be formulas that incentivise clubs to perfom well financially and with marketing, but some component of the total financial income of the sport has to be pooled.

so would penalise the clubs that do a lot and reward the clubs that do nothing, similar to the cap now and tv deal, its easy replace them with teams that will, the franchise (new) should get rid of the teams that promised the world and delivered nothing

I said people would say that...

But seriously. In the real world, how would you raise the level of the teams who are struggling for finance to a point where they could possibly start to contribute? Getting rid of teams is great, but we'd be left with 4 or 6 maybe?

or it would make people put more in or potentially attract people,

[Mike]

Mike » Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:26 pm

pedro wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 3:30 pm



so would penalise the clubs that do a lot and reward the clubs that do nothing, similar to the cap now and tv deal, its easy replace them with teams that will, the franchise (new) should get rid of the teams that promised the world and delivered nothing

I said people would say that...

But seriously. In the real world, how would you raise the level of the teams who are struggling for finance to a point where they could possibly start to contribute? Getting rid of teams is great, but we'd be left with 4 or 6 maybe?

or it would make people put more in or potentially attract people,

Its a pretty harsh criticism of almost everyone in the game, that they simply aren't trying hard enough, and have never tried hard enough to be more successful. If you truly believe that, you can't have much hope for the sport.

[pedro]

Mike » Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:26 pm


I said people would say that...

But seriously. In the real world, how would you raise the level of the teams who are struggling for finance to a point where they could possibly start to contribute? Getting rid of teams is great, but we'd be left with 4 or 6 maybe?

or it would make people put more in or potentially attract people,

Its a pretty harsh criticism of almost everyone in the game, that they simply aren't trying hard enough, and have never tried hard enough to be more successful. If you truly believe that, you can't have much hope for the sport.

I dont for a lot of clubs

[Mike]

or it would make people put more in or potentially attract people,

Its a pretty harsh criticism of almost everyone in the game, that they simply aren't trying hard enough, and have never tried hard enough to be more successful. If you truly believe that, you can't have much hope for the sport.

I dont for a lot of clubs

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

[pedro]

Its a pretty harsh criticism of almost everyone in the game, that they simply aren't trying hard enough, and have never tried hard enough to be more successful. If you truly believe that, you can't have much hope for the sport.

I dont for a lot of clubs

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

[Mike]

I dont for a lot of clubs

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.