Good salary cap article

[cpwigan]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -u04k.html

[Kittwazzer]

Its correct what he says. Whatever the initial reasoning behind the introduction of the Salary Cap, we are now ina a situation where the tail is wagging the dog!

Out of interest, if the Salary Cap was simply abandoned, how do you think it would affect Super League?

In our pre-Cap glory days, we effectively signed every top player we could get our hands on. Successful team yes, but it came close to bankrupting us!

I think Warrington would be the team to prosper, their owner seems to have bottomless pockets where his team is concerned. Can't see IL taking that position, he is a businessman first and foremost. Any major investments would have to justify themselves on the P+L Account!

[cpwigan]

I daresay Wire and Leeds would spend bit. Not that it always = success. IIRC Leeds spent bigger than us at time when we were the best in the late 80's / 90's. I doubt IL would be keen to follow suit. It might attract some big investors though. Afterall SL is small change compared to Premiership Football.

[Kittwazzer]

Same thing happened in the '70s at Barrow, of all places. They recruited John Mantle as coach and gave him a blank cheque book.

I attended 'An Evening with Vince Karalius' and people in the audience were asking why we hadn't sign X, Y & Z. He replied that Barrow were printing money up there and no other team could or would compete with the contracts they were offering.

Didn't do em any good though!

[cpwigan]

I do think you would get clubs able to get success quickly in the short term. Widnes spring to mind with their owner if they had a franchise.

[Dobby]

Most SL clubs cant even turn a profit with the salary cap so I dont think that we would see a large rise in wages or spending without it. You may get the odd exception like a Simon Moran but unfortunately RL doesnt have a long line of sugar daddies ready to pump money into SL teams. I also get the impression that chairmen are quite happy with the cap as they dont actually want to, or cant afford to, spend anymore than they currently do.

[DaveO]

I wasn't aware the cap in Oz was originally designed to work like that. Reading that then like ours the primary reason for it being introduced was clearly to help keep the clubs solvent (our 50% rule was designed for that purpose).

It seems in both countries the reason it was introduced has been forgotten and for some reason it has changed to have the objective of evening the competition out and it's interesting to see someone of Gould's stature in the game actually challenge this notion calling it absurd.

On the face of it it sounds an ideal but it is an absurd idea and if it ever could really work it would reduce the game to being a lottery rather than a competition. I have always thought this myself and find the whole idea completely artificial.

It's been mentioned on another thread the reward for success is the break up of your team as the wages the players can command increase. I fail to see how fans will ever understand this being the reward for success.

It's also interesting to read the idea that the original Oz cap had a reward in it for growing your own players with the design that this would stop clubs wanting to poach other clubs players as its main aim. That is an interesting take on an idea often suggested here.

I don't think there is a single fan from an opposing club that would support Wigan getting salary cap breaks for home grown players but equally I don't think any of them would realise that would mean we won't come looking to swipe their best players either.

Dave

[georgeorwell]

I read an article a few weeks ago where the chairman of one of the big RU clubs was having a right go at salary capping. His final statement made me laugh, he said "It's very difficult to put a team together under £4m. It will mean all the clubs shedding two or three of their highest paid players. That will mean a lot of players in the market place."

£4m eh, I wish.