SALARY CAP

[nathan_rugby]

Will the cap rise either inflation this year or will clubs be expected to work with less resources.

How will not increasing it mean clubs are working with less resources?

It’s the players who are impacted not the clubs .

[Caboosegg]

Will the cap rise either inflation this year or will clubs be expected to work with less resources.

How will not increasing it mean clubs are working with less resources?

It’s the players who are impacted not the clubs .

Exactly, players who contracts are being renewed/negotiated will want more money as otherwise they are taking a real terms payout. On top of this with the current exchange rate offers from the NRL have even more financial clout.

[nathan_rugby]

Will the cap rise either inflation this year or will clubs be expected to work with less resources.

How will not increasing it mean clubs are working with less resources?

It’s the players who are impacted not the clubs .

Exactly, players who contracts are being renewed/negotiated will want more money as otherwise they are taking a real terms payout. On top of this with the current exchange rate offers from the NRL have even more financial clout.

It impacts the whole league and with alternate options limited like NRL or Union I don’t think it will impact clubs overall, just the players.

[pedro]

Wire,Leeds and Saints make money dont they?

Great, that increases the pool that can be shared throughout the league, and they are net contributers to the organization and should be recognized as such.

I'm just not sure how pointing at teams and telling them how bad they are is going to improve things without giving them some mechanism to achieve the improvements we need. Maybe it will, and we should simply kick out 6 teams and drops to 6 plus York and featherstone?

why should they receive less for doing more? Lets take Cas, they do nothing to bring in fans (if they do they fail as their crowds are terrible) have never fixed up their ground and dont have an academy, so lets give them more than a club that already invests a lot of its own money. What we should do is reward the teams that do a good job, we are condemning the other teams as they have condemned themselves by years of neglect

[Mike]

Wire,Leeds and Saints make money dont they?

Great, that increases the pool that can be shared throughout the league, and they are net contributers to the organization and should be recognized as such.

I'm just not sure how pointing at teams and telling them how bad they are is going to improve things without giving them some mechanism to achieve the improvements we need. Maybe it will, and we should simply kick out 6 teams and drops to 6 plus York and featherstone?

why should they receive less for doing more? Lets take Cas, they do nothing to bring in fans (if they do they fail as their crowds are terrible) have never fixed up their ground and dont have an academy, so lets give them more than a club that already invests a lot of its own money. What we should do is reward the teams that do a good job, we are condemning the other teams as they have condemned themselves by years of neglect

If you start thinking of the competition as one entity, rather than them and us it makes sense. It gives us more chance to grow and it an approach that several minority sports with limited reach have taken. Central ownership gives the chance for strategic decisions that have long term benefit to the whole competition to overrule short term statements like "why should they receive less for doing more" which are holding us back. We're not giving clubs resources, we're allocating resources within the competition to where growth potential is greatest.

The alternatives are to abandon and utimately lose a significant number of underperforming teams and just focus on the 3 or 4 that are going ok. We need more than 3 or 4 to have a successful, professional competition. We could keep everything the same situation thati snt working and hasn't worked and complain more though. I don't think investing in the already successful improves the overall competition as much as improving the parts that are struggling.

I'm making the suggestion that central ownership is something we haven't tried and I think could make a positive difference. It might be radical and I admit its alien to UK team sports, but there are plenty of places where this model has and is working in the UK like darts and snooker.

[pedro]

so we could get rid out of marketing dept, and also we could have a new ground and everyone could pay for it...be awesome, especially as we are all paying for everyone wages

[Mike]

so we could get rid out of marketing dept, and also we could have a new ground and everyone could pay for it...be awesome, especially as we are all paying for everyone wages

You certainly wouldn't be retaining your franchise if you behaved like that. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion about ways to improve the sport from where we are now. But reducing everything to extreme and, frankly a little silly, arguments doesn't really help.

From your responses I'm getting the strong impression you believe its not possible to run an organization with more than one site where some are more profitable than others. The successful parts will automatically stop being successful if other parts of the organisation aren't contributiong as much as they are and they are not keeping everything they contribute. Fair enough, but I'd say pretty much any large organization *is* able to achieve this.

[pedro]

so we could get rid out of marketing dept, and also we could have a new ground and everyone could pay for it...be awesome, especially as we are all paying for everyone wages

You certainly wouldn't be retaining your franchise if you behaved like that. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion about ways to improve the sport from where we are now. But reducing everything to extreme and, frankly a little silly, arguments doesn't really help.

From your responses I'm getting the strong impression you believe its not possible to run an organization with more than one site where some are more profitable than others. The successful parts will automatically stop being successful if other parts of the organisation aren't contributiong as much as they are and they are not keeping everything they contribute. Fair enough, but I'd say pretty much any large organization *is* able to achieve this.

im serious, if it doesnt work like that im not sure how else it would work

[Mike]

so we could get rid out of marketing dept, and also we could have a new ground and everyone could pay for it...be awesome, especially as we are all paying for everyone wages

You certainly wouldn't be retaining your franchise if you behaved like that. I'm genuinely trying to have a discussion about ways to improve the sport from where we are now. But reducing everything to extreme and, frankly a little silly, arguments doesn't really help.

From your responses I'm getting the strong impression you believe its not possible to run an organization with more than one site where some are more profitable than others. The successful parts will automatically stop being successful if other parts of the organisation aren't contributiong as much as they are and they are not keeping everything they contribute. Fair enough, but I'd say pretty much any large organization *is* able to achieve this.

im serious, if it doesnt work like that im not sure how else it would work

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Wigan_forever1985]

I cant see how your version works Mike - might just be me but you're removing any option to grow IMO you're encouraging shrinking, you cant run a competition in which everyone competes against eachother and in the same breath expect them to all contribute to keeping the others in the competition afloat.

Its essentially what we have now with the youth systems isnt it - teams outside Wigan/Saints and Leeds dont bother investing as they know they can pick up the strays, but if they were forced to invest then its a different idea.

The only way i see pooled resources working is at youth level - where no club runs an academy but the league owns the youth system then you go for a draft type approach allowing the youth and talent to be distributed fairly among the clubs.

I still think the best idea is to take the brakes off, you talk about how does a team like salford get on par - well if the Dr had been allowed to invest like he wanted they would have done wouldnt they

I also dont agree in pumping money into the "brand" ive said a million times to grow the sport its got to be done at player level, not club or league level. You need players that people know, they need to be recognizable, we blew it with Tomkins - he was a star when he went to the NRL the rugby league bubble popped and we have struggled for traction ever since.

Thats why i say take the brakes off let players earn sponsors, if they know they can make extra money trust me they will put in the work, get them out there in the public eye it will draw people in.