kevccool wrote:
IL treats the club like a business because modern sports teams/clubs are businesses whether we like it or not. Players, stadiums, training, facilities, youth development all of the things that go on behind the scenes all cost money and if you think that our ticket money covers this think again.
Let debunk this myth that sports teams/clubs are businesses once and for all shall we?
A business listed on the stock exchange has a duty to its shareholders to turn a profit. That comes before everything else and is a legal requirement. It puts all sorts of constraints on a business and you just aren't allowed to run such a business at a loss year on year.
Wigan RLFC is not listed on the stock exchange and isn't bound by the same rules. It's a private company with a majority shareholder which is IL. It can run at a loss if IL so wishes, he can pump money into it or not.
There are no rules to say its expenditures can only be met via earned income.
Sure it has costs and its entirely up to IL how he finances those.
If he has decided this must be via selling assets then we really do need a new owner because:
a) he has failed to get the club to generate sufficient income off its own bat including things like sponsorship and
b) he isn't prepared to make up the difference that would mean we don't need to sell players to survive.
We will not remain at the top for long unless IL's vision of declining league standards comes true and if everybody else plays the same game as him. Mr Koukash is playing a different game.
IL is far from perfect but he has stabilised the club and got us somewhere near where we belong with some trophies thrown in too. All players/humans want more money its human nature just like we do in our jobs and the problem is currently in Super League the money is not there - this is not IL's fault its the RFL's rules and regulations and we have fell foul to them in the past!
IL has voted against an increase in the salary cap so yes its his fault to that extent. He voted against it because he can't afford/does not want to pay more which is another reason he looks more like the chairman we don't want here.
When a player wants to leave or hints at leaving you can do one of three things you can offer a package to make him stay (within the cap)and sign a new contract, make him stay and honour the contract or let him have his wishes and leave for a large fee. The first option is currently unlikely with a star player as the kudos of the NRL and the riches on offer makes it impossible to compete with. This leaves just 2 options. Option 1 keep an unhappy player who's morale and head may not be on the job and could have a detrimental effect on the team as a whole or let a player go on good terms in return for a chunk of cash for the club. Its a no brainer isn't it!
How many more times is someone going to post you can't keep an unhappy player to excuse IL's farcical behaviour over Sam's contract?
What happens when Charnley leaves? Same excuse? H after next season? Hampshire in two years time?
We are going to have to make some players unhappy or IL will be the richest chairman in the 2nd division after 2015 when P&R comes back.
Its all good and well using the money to buy new players but top players want top wages. Please correct me if I am wrong but the cap is about 1.7 million for the top 25 players (I know there are a few exclusions etc) if it is to be believed that Sam was on £300,000 and Lockers £200,000 then that leaves 1.2 million between another 23 players and there are the likes of Pat, Harrison, Powell (bet he is not cheap!)Smith, Green etc it must be a nightmare to juggle that I for one wouldn't fancy it whilst keeping everyone happy.
The cap i snow £1.825m with all special dispensations simply rolled into one headline figure that can be spent however you like. Powell doesn't count on the cap as he is "new talent".
Leeds have a salary structure in place that does seem to keep their players happy. According to Rads they know as players what they must do to move to the next level of pay and it seems to work.
Until the rules change the only way I can see it working is to put all your eggs in the youth basket and make sure their coaching and facilities are the best. We will need a conveyor belt however as Union and the NRL vultures will be circling!
Putting all your eggs into the youth basked will lead to what happened in 2006 which is what we did then. Except our chairman probably would not go out and sign players to stave off relegation.
If we work on the premise players are continually going to be leaving after getting remotely any good we will never have a settled side like Leeds either.
We know we can't bid on wages for new players at NRL levels but we could have kept Sam to his contract particularly as it was supposed to keep him here for one more season at least (that is the big issue which upsets most people anyway).
You seem to be saying you can't see any way out of the hole we are in and as a fan there is little you or I can do about it but what I expect is for our chairman to do something about it. He isn't doing so.
Instead he is kind of complying with the inevitable (in his eyes), seems to be planning to be the best of a poor league and fundamentally disagrees with Koukash who
does want to do something about it.
Lets suppose for a minute the salary cap was raised, Wigan run as a business, could not afford to pay any more in wages than it does now and Salford offered Sam his NRL level of wages. What would your reaction be to IL cashing in and selling him to Salford then?
Would you just accept we were not rich enough as a club and complain Salford were buying success or would you want IL to do something about it?
