Strange comments from Eamonn McManus

[GeoffN]

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... tlead.html

Saints chairman Eamonn McManus believes all clubs should spend the maximum permitted in order to remain competitive and has called for penalties to be imposed on those who fail to do so.

"I am strongly of the opinion that, as the cap is designed predominantly to ensure a competitive league, then it is as wrong to under-spend the salary cap as it is to overspend," wrote McManus in his club's programme for last Friday's Super League derby with Wigan.

Another one who has forgotten the original reason for the cap!
Penalising clubs for spending sensibly!
What's he on?

[Spanakopitta]

i can see where he's coming from in a strange way.

Salford have just signed 3(?) players so they mustn't have been up to the limit but obviously have the cash there.

I agree with the cap in the sense that it prevents clubs from spending beyond their means. So 50% of income seems reasonable.

I don't agree that there should be an upper limit though as i feel this penalises the bigger clubs. And before anyone says that this would be an open door for wigan to sign overseas players, this is easily dealt with by having the overseas player limit.

As for spreading the talent around, don't think it works as well as intended. There are threads on other message boards detailing how the numbers of GB qualified players in the top division has actually gone down since the cap was introduced. Surely in terms of the international team(s) this is a bad thing.

Don't think players that have been brought through the junior system should count at all on the cap (whether there is an upper ceiling or not)....some clubs spend a lot of money on youth development while others don't bother...not counting them on the cap should be a reward for actually spending the time and effort developing players.

[Fraggle]

I think there was something similar written in the League Express this week, but can't remember by whom (probably Martyn Sadler). The salary cap limit is hardly very high, yet we still have teams that don't seem to generate enough income to spend all of that money. I agree that the salary cap rules should cover minimum spend as well as maximum spend, and any club that is unable or unwilling to bring its finances up to an agreed minimum (say 5% of the limit, since that is consistent with overspend) would be penalised until they get their act together. Other teams can do it, why should the smaller clubs be allowed to get away with not trying to improve themselves or put themselves in a position where they are able to pay their players their true worth?

Since the salary cap is now about levelling the standards, simply lowering the top teams to a lower level is not enough; the lower teams need to do their bit as well instead of waiting for the top teams to be penalised and lose points...

[turf]

GeoffN, you asked, "what is he (Eamon Mcmanus, spelling?) on"?

I have an answer eith a comment like that:

Potentially libellous, if amusing (for us, if not Mr McManus!) comments removed! Fraggle

[GeoffN]

Fraggle posted:
I agree that the salary cap rules should cover minimum spend as well as maximum spend, and any club that is unable or unwilling to bring its finances up to an agreed minimum (say 5% of the limit, since that is consistent with overspend) would be penalised until they get their act together. Other teams can do it, why should the smaller clubs be allowed to get away with not trying to improve themselves or put themselves in a position where they are able to pay their players their true worth?

It depends what they're spending the money on (that they could be spending on wages). There's much more to improving a club than buying the best players.
If Salford, say, decide to put some of their possible salary budget towards their new ground, for example, or improving their marketing in order to improve their pathetic fan base, or boost their youth system, (or paying off debts, for that matter)why should they be penalised?

[turf]

Sorry for the libellous comment Fraggle.

[ancientnloyal]

turf posted:
GeoffN, you asked, "what is he (Eamon Mcmanus, spelling?) on"?

I have an answer eith a comment like that:

Potentially libellous, if amusing (for us, if not Mr McManus!) comments removed! Fraggle

Geoff I can see in a way where he's coming from, he wants to ensure a competitive league and that each club sould spend the maximum amount to help every club... why spend 40% when you can add a world class ozzy for the other 10%... bringing more quality players to the game or even spread out the british amongst clubs.

Say Huddersfield continually spend 47% on wages... they're missing out on 3%... perhaps say £30,000 more they could spend on a better player... instead of Chav Brown, they could have had (i dunno) someone else who costs £30k more and who i better?


In a way

[Spanakopitta]

I just really disagree with the cap as it is now as it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

The onus should be on the poorer clubs to gets their acts together regarding improved marketing and other ways of generating income and attracting fans so bring them up to the level of the so called bigger clubs not the other way around.

If the poorer clubs had more income, the 50% of the income would be higher and this would give a sound basis for increasing the upper spending limit of the cap.