RUGBY ON THE DOLE

[tex]

I can not believe how many are being fooled and can not see the real issue.

OK we accept the cap and we have "Welafare State rugby" where the monies from Sky TV and the bigger clubs is handed out to clubs who can not develop their own revenue.

How long before Sky offer less money and the bigger clubs say we have had enough ?.

Faced with this issue what is the RFL response

A. We get off our arses and attract more sponsership so we can pay the clubs more or,

B. We do nothing and cut the amount of money available to all of the clubs, and to put in the begging bowls of the smaller clubs.

The welfare state bred a mindset of the world owes us a living this is now how our sport is being run.

The clubs generating the money are paying heavily to keep the dependant clubs solvent it cant continue.

If this "welfare state rugby" continues thats where our young players will find themselves and where the current RFL board should be (on the dole)

The main component of any sport is competition not an artificaly rigged handicap where sucess is held back to pay for failure to survive.

Wake up to the real issues the RFL needs strong leadership

[ragman]

Fantastic post !!!

It is not the job of the RFL to interfere in the business and financial arrangements of clubs. It's their job to administer the game, the playing rules, the disciplinary aspects and the national side. How much teams pay THEIR players has got nothing at all to do with the governing body.

I honestly believe that DW should openly declare that we are having nothing to do with any artificial handicapping system, and that we will pay our players whatever we want. IF we are ever going to improve standards, and compete with the Aussies and Kiwis, we are going to have to get away from a state of affairs where, as Tex quite rightly says, success is being restricted to prop up mediocrity.

I'm sure if we took a lead, the other big clubs would follow, and if some smaller, unsuccessful clubs go to the wall, tough.That's how it is in any other industry, and it's how our other national sports operate. Can you imagine the FA telling Chelsea or Man U that they can only spend x amount of their money on players. They would quite rightly be laughed all the way to the High Court

[gpartin]

Some excellent points from both of you. The RFL are aware that the Salary cap is an illegal restriction to trade in a free market. The level-playing-field card has been dealt by the fans of clubs who have a vested interest in keeping the cap low and have no intention of trying to develop their own youth to a standard worthy of Super League. I was surprised on another site at the amount of stick I received from a Huddersfield fan, the fan of a team made up almost completely by Ex Wigan players and Australians.

Until the Salary cap excludes U21 players as it does in NL1, allowing youngsters to play the odd game without their entire salaries being taken into account for the cap, we will never be able to compete at international level and the playing field will always be skewed in favour of the clubs which are the least successful from a business point of view.

[robjoenz]

So... if the cap was removed, how would the smaller, less supported clubs like Harlequins, Huddersfield and Salford bring in the money required to compete with sides like Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Bradford.

There are less RL fans in London and Salford than the areas surrounding the top four clubs I have mentioned. In Yorkshire there are many sides in a relatively small area, people in Huddersfield, Halifax and Wakefield, for example, are drawn to the bigger clubs of Leeds and Bradford. Similarly, young quality players are drawn to the likes of Leeds, Bradford and even Wigan (e.g. Luke Robinson, David Hodgson, Danny Tickle) because they have superior facilities.

I agree with the points made regarding amending the cap to promote youth development but it isn't as simple as just removing the cap altogether, it is needed to stop the top four clubs breaking away. SL is small enough as it is without creating two leagues within one.

[butt monkey]

robjoenz posted:
So... if the cap was removed, how would the smaller, less supported clubs like Harlequins, Huddersfield and Salford bring in the money required to compete with sides like Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Bradford.

Let them merge - as was originally intended under the arrival of "Super League" - an inaccuracy if ever there was one!

[mickh]

What a cracking original post, I'm sure most of us have been thinking this at the back of our minds but have never really thought about putting it into words.
Looking to the future, will this new franchising buisness that is materialising in a couple of years have any bearing on how we are able to run the club, and if so, will we be able to control our expendature to favour our team, and to recognise the input the Wigan club contributes to the survival of Rugby League in this country, be it through travelling supporters or through the youth set up?

[robjoenz]

Automatic posted:

robjoenz posted:
So... if the cap was removed, how would the smaller, less supported clubs like Harlequins, Huddersfield and Salford bring in the money required to compete with sides like Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Bradford.

Well they have had 10 years of SL to get it rite and in Huddersfield over 100 years so the answer is by improving .

Carry on... you've not explained how.

[ragman]

robjoenz posted:

Automatic posted:

robjoenz posted:
So... if the cap was removed, how would the smaller, less supported clubs like Harlequins, Huddersfield and Salford bring in the money required to compete with sides like Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Bradford.

Well they have had 10 years of SL to get it rite and in Huddersfield over 100 years so the answer is by improving .

Carry on... you've not explained how.

Rob, you're missing the point - It's not the job of the RFL to rig the game so that 'smaller' teams can compete. If teams can't improve and grow by being commercially successful and competetive on the field, they can merge, develop youth and scouting policies that improve themselves or go to the wall. The point is, it's up to them to compete, not the RFL.
The game in this country has never been stronger, higher profile, and closer to Australia in terms of playing standards than when Wigan dominated from 85 onwards. Yes, we payed top money, and got top players, but the game didn't fold and fade away because other teams didn't have the same resources. Instead, teams like Widnes, Bradford, Leeds and St Helens got their act together and we all dragged each other up to standards never seen before in this country.We started to give the Aussies good games, and we had loads of British players being sought out to play down under. It was this 'golden era' that first got SKY interested in RL, and led to the Murdoch money coming into the game, and ultimately to Superleague itself. And it was all done on teams being free to operate as businesses - no salary cap to peg anybody back.

[robjoenz]

ragman posted:

robjoenz posted:

Automatic posted: Well they have had 10 years of SL to get it rite and in Huddersfield over 100 years so the answer is by improving .

Carry on... you've not explained how.

Rob, you're missing the point - It's not the job of the RFL to rig the game so that 'smaller' teams can compete. If teams can't improve and grow by being commercially successful and competetive on the field, they can merge, develop youth and scouting policies that improve themselves or go to the wall. The point is, it's up to them to compete, not the RFL.
The game in this country has never been stronger, higher profile, and closer to Australia in terms of playing standards than when Wigan dominated from 85 onwards. Yes, we payed top money, and got top players, but the game didn't fold and fade away because other teams didn't have the same resources. Instead, teams like Widnes, Bradford, Leeds and St Helens got their act together and we all dragged each other up to standards never seen before in this country.We started to give the Aussies good games, and we had loads of British players being sought out to play down under. It was this 'golden era' that first got SKY interested in RL, and led to the Murdoch money coming into the game, and ultimately to Superleague itself. And it was all done on teams being free to operate as businesses - no salary cap to peg anybody back.

I don't think I am missing the point... you'd end up with a 5 or 6 team league at most and then a 6 or 7 more lesser sides who struggle to survive. The lesser teams would go to the wall attempting to pay the same salaries that Wigan could afford. Where would the benefit be in that?

I can't see mergers working either, try telling Whitehaven fans they're merging with Workington or Castleford fans they're merging with Wakefield! Daft idea IMO.

teams like Widnes, Bradford, Leeds and St Helens got their act together and we all dragged each other up to standards never seen before in this country.

If you removed the cap you'd not pull teams closer to each other you'd push the smaller clubs further away. SL is closer this season than it was last season and last season closer than any other year I've been watching. The game is heading in the right direction.

[butt monkey]

robjoenz posted:
If you removed the cap you'd not pull teams closer to each other you'd push the smaller clubs further away. SL is closer this season than it was last season and last season closer than any other year I've been watching. The game is heading in the right direction.

The general opinion is, that the standards are falling - not rising though. We ARE further away than ever from being successful on the international stage, where we are judged (by the media), rightly or wrongly, to be a "Real" competition or not.

You cannot provide evidence to the contrary either, just look at the match performances and results internationally for GB in the last 25 years. We were at the closest to beating the mighty Australians when Wigan were at the peak, with no constraints. I watched them!