Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
BrisbaneRhino wrote:Even if Leeds make a million a year profit (I use that term advisedly as its a slippery sod itself), that means they'd need to save it for years to pay for major redevelopment of the stadium.
An increase in the cap would mean nothing for most SL teams, who are kept alive purely by the largesse of their owners. It would also in large part go straight into the hands of the existing crop of SL players. If the cap is holding everyone back, why hasn't every SL side got a "marquee" player?
TBH the naivety about the cap is incredible. It can't stop teams going bust but its far better protection than none at all. The idea that its some kind of capitalist conspiracy to keep cigar chewing suits in champers is mind-boggling. Most club owners have to support their clubs every year, not the other way round.
Surely it is their interest to keep wages low - lower the wages the less that is required financially of them?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
leeds have the same salary cap available as the teams above them. If you're spending it on the wrong players that's the fault of your club, not the system. Poor recruitment and retention is your problem, not the salary cap
Jake the Peg wrote:leeds have the same salary cap available as the teams above them. If you're spending it on the wrong players that's the fault of your club, not the system. Poor recruitment and retention is your problem, not the salary cap
Where has anyone blamed the SC for where we are?? The debate is more about adding/retaining more quality in SL.
I really am rhinoms and haven't stolen his Avatar!
BrisbaneRhino wrote:An increase in the cap would mean nothing for most SL teams, who are kept alive purely by the largesse of their owners. It would also in large part go straight into the hands of the existing crop of SL players. If the cap is holding everyone back, why hasn't every SL side got a "marquee" player?.
No it wouldn't. Regards, Sam Burgess, Luke Burgess, Tom Burgess, George Burgess, Joe Burgess, Elliot Whitehead, Josh Hodgson, James Graham, Gareth Widdop, Josh Charnley, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, plus a host of overseas players who left super league for the NRL and a load of NRL players who didn't come over to super league as the wages are now much better down under.
Last edited by Sir Kevin Sinfield on Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
I came across this article that states Wigan were spending £3.2m on wages in 2000 and still didn't win the comp. it's crazy that wages have gone down in real terms every year since then and continue to go down every year.
The aim of the salary cap is to keep a level playing field, not to stop clubs going bust. If it was to stop clubs going bust the link in the cap to turnover would not have been removed and championship clubs would not be able to spend £1m. Limiting total spending is not the only way to keep super league competitive.
I came across this article that states Wigan were spending £3.2m on wages in 2000 and still didn't win the comp. it's crazy that wages have gone down in real terms every year since then and continue to go down every year.
The aim of the salary cap is to keep a level playing field, not to stop clubs going bust. If it was to stop clubs going bust the link in the cap to turnover would not have been removed and championship clubs would not be able to spend £1m. Limiting total spending is not the only way to keep super league competitive.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
The cap in theory is a good thing in theory but the reality doesn't provide the utopia that many think it should.
Firstly the bigger clubs will always have an advantage - the quality of their youth development and their access to the cream of the youth means that they will be able to have a bigger chunk of their players on very low wages - e.g. Sutcliffe and Lilley, the early days of McGuire and Burrow.
This allows: For more cap spend on better/older players than the less fashionable clubs due to the lack of juniors padding out the squad Teams full of journeyman players because they don't have the appropriate quality of juniors and they need a squad 25 players the cost of which has to fit within the cap.
Secondly the cap has to keep pace with other alternatives e.g. NRL, RU. If the cap stagnates then you logically only two things can happen: If teams want to maintain the same relative wages they must have smaller squads i.e. £1.8m x 25 players add inflation and logic suggests either less players or less wages Or the quality drops as clubs can no longer pay the wages they could and have to accept lower quality as the market price for quality has kept pace with inflation or even increased as market forces form other sports with increasing caps dictate the price for quality.
It could be argued that rather than being the saviour of the sport it is actually death of full time professional rugby league.
Everyone is complaining about the dire quality of SL at the moment - it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to accept there is a correlation between stagnating salary cap and lower standards.
For who talk about the real world - out in the real world there aren't restrictions as how much you can spend on your labour force - there isn't a limit on what Morrisons, Tescos, Asda and Sainsbury can spend on labour why do we think it is such a good idea in RL. Are we suggesting the likes of Caddick, McManus, Glover, Moran, Hudgell are so stupid they cannot be trusted to do in RL what they do in their day job?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Mar 04 2002 Posts: 4462 Location: Dublin's fair city
Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote:Rather than a salary cap that limits the total wages a club can pay, I would be interested to see something like the following. You are allowed 5 players earning over £100k, a further 5 players earning over £80k, a further 5 players earning over £60k and a further 5 players earning over £40k.
No one team would be able to sign all the best players, which should keep the league competitive, but it wouldn't limit what clubs can pay young players such as Lilly, or stop players achieving a wage that is their market value.
By introducing those limits you are getting closer to legal challenges against the cap for restrictive practices. with no restrictions and an overall cap there is less proof that an individual is being treated unfairly. If you say only 5 players can earn €100k then players 6 downwards are being restricted in what they can earn.
Hail Stewie Griffin wrote: All dumbies those Irish folk
Joined: Apr 03 2003 Posts: 28186 Location: A world of my own ...
Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote:No it wouldn't. Regards, Sam Burgess, Luke Burgess, Tom Burgess, George Burgess, Joe Burgess, Elliot Whitehead, Josh Hodgson, James Graham, Gareth Widdop, Josh Charnley, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, plus a host of overseas players who left super league for the NRL and a load of NRL players who didn't come over to super league as the wages are now much better down under.
Gareth Widdop left due to the salary cap?
Now you're just embarrassing yourself chief.
"As you travel through life don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things" - George Carlin
Joined: May 25 2006 Posts: 8893 Location: Garth's Darkplace.
Sal Paradise wrote:For who talk about the real world - out in the real world there aren't restrictions as how much you can spend on your labour force - there isn't a limit on what Morrisons, Tescos, Asda and Sainsbury can spend on labour why do we think it is such a good idea in RL. Are we suggesting the likes of Caddick, McManus, Glover, Moran, Hudgell are so stupid they cannot be trusted to do in RL what they do in their day job?
There is definitely a link between supermarkets and RL.
"Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
