Jungle Out There Banner
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 220

Thread: Salary Cap

  1. #26
    In The South Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    3,688
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    And it was always the RFL who tried to convince us otherwise they never had the guts to put pressure on the lesser Superleague Clubs to raise their game on and off the field. When eventually the top clubs had to settle for the diminishing salary cap the RFL said we now have a more competitive super league when in reality the standard of the game in quality and intensity had dropped to a lower standard which gave the likes of most the Yorkshire clubs winnable games.
    If you're not good enough, tough. It's competitive sport.

    Also, if we reduce the cap, the clubs that produce the talent from the academies that do well in SL, lose those players to the NRL. So a reduced cap & a lower quality pool of players is the result. Giving an altogether low standard league where the clubs who CBA can compete with the ones who invest & develop players properly
    Last edited by Ralph Fridge; 26th May 2020 at 12:00.
    Dave Woods: the guy who makes Eddie Hemmings look like a decent commentator

  2. #27
    Learning All The Songs barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ashton in Makerfield
    Posts
    1,269
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Reducing the cap would be a disaster and while I can understand Wakey and Cas supporting it the fact that Leeds and Hetherington are supporting it is farcical. They are arguably the best supported team with the largest potential supporter base in the league.

    The fact Hetherington supports this is insulting to the clubs who are trying to progress the sport. I sympathise with Cas and Wakey to an extent regarding crowds grounds etc and even the fact that Leeds probably have first choice on most of the youngsters in the area. They however aren't helping the cause by dragging teams down to their level and this then goes onto another state of the game thread.

    Small teams exist in every sport, not every team can be a world beater. The problem is our small sides can't even spend up to the cap now and how are they going to turn that around?

    Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

  3. #28
    In The West Stand Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,616
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogues Gallery View Post
    One of my major concerns with the proposed salary cap reduction is that Hetherington would again get his way and scrap reserve teams. Then he would send the majority of his younger players on dual reg to further circumvent his cap liability.
    Ivť been waiting for Hetherington to suggest that. Can't stand the guy.

  4. #29
    In The South Stand Ralph Fridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Around
    Posts
    3,688
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    Ivť been waiting for Hetherington to suggest that. Can't stand the guy.
    Far too much to say him. Rent a gob
    Dave Woods: the guy who makes Eddie Hemmings look like a decent commentator

  5. #30
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    497
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    Reducing the cap would be a disaster and while I can understand Wakey and Cas supporting it the fact that Leeds and Hetherington are supporting it is farcical. They are arguably the best supported team with the largest potential supporter base in the league.

    The fact Hetherington supports this is insulting to the clubs who are trying to progress the sport. I sympathise with Cas and Wakey to an extent regarding crowds grounds etc and even the fact that Leeds probably have first choice on most of the youngsters in the area. They however aren't helping the cause by dragging teams down to their level and this then goes onto another state of the game thread.

    Small teams exist in every sport, not every team can be a world beater. The problem is our small sides can't even spend up to the cap now and how are they going to turn that around?

    Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
    I don't pretend to know Hethrington well, however I have worked closely with Leeds in the past. Hethrington has seen his power and influence weakened by the Lancashire three and the pay off given to Wood, who whilst not a fool was a Hethrington man. Rogues is right "A" Team RL is not on the agenda of Leeds, they have Hunslet, Fev or A.N. Other for that. I really rate Eamon, but he is a financier and if he thinks the balance sheet needs squaring off then compromises may be made and the danger is Rimmer/RFL and then Hethrington rebalance the power.

  6. #31
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,295
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    Small teams exist in every sport, not every team can be a world beater.
    Precisely, this is professional sports not an infant school sports day. It infuriates me that so many in our game think that the way to be a successful sport is by artificially trying to make everyone as crap as the worst team. Sports thrive on what the best teams do. People are attracted by high quality games between the best teams, not a 24-24 draw between Huddersfield and Wakefield who are still in the play off mix despite losing half their games.

    If we didn’t have a play off system and if we didn’t have a salary cap I could understand the attitude that some clubs cannot compete. But to do so in this system is ridiculous. If you cannot compete now, tough, know your place or try harder.

  7. #32
    In The West Stand The Wee Waa Womble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Harrogate
    Age
    29
    Posts
    5,071
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Correct me if Iím wrong but isnít the basic salary cap pretty much covered by central funding via the RFL from the sky tv deal? If clubs canít make enough money to cover their costs above what they get from these TV rights then screw them. Clubs that are successful financially or lucky enough to have a generous backer should not be penalised to suit the lowest common denominator.
    Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.

  8. #33
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    858
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wee Waa Womble View Post
    Correct me if Iím wrong but isnít the basic salary cap pretty much covered by central funding via the RFL from the sky tv deal? If clubs canít make enough money to cover their costs above what they get from these TV rights then screw them. Clubs that are successful financially or lucky enough to have a generous backer should not be penalised to suit the lowest common denominator.
    Unfortunately the opposite of this view is widely held in Yorkshire.

  9. #34
    Learning All The Songs Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,349
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    Unfortunately the opposite of this view is widely held in Yorkshire.
    Mainly because aside from Leeds, they win nothing and are all skint. I suppose Hull have won a couple of cups too if you count them. I'm just thinking, out of the 4 West Riding SL teams, I can't see how they hold so much sway. Ok, Leeds are a big voice, Huddersfield have Davy but seem to keep quiet, Way and Cas, who really cares, they must have support for this from elsewhere. Salford? W***n? HKR, most likely.

  10. #35
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    497
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    If you go back to pre-super league Dave it was one member, one vote. Which did serve them well all the way into the mid sixties. The challenge Cup as an example almost anyone could get to the semi or the final and neutrals went in droves.

    What you guys have nailed is in thirty years the game has changed. Better facilities, marquee players etc etc. But two clubs haven't fundamentally changed, Wakey and Cas and others struggle financially to keep abreast of the change they have made, Widnes and Salford. Covid will see many of the clubs in the wider game believe it's time to go back to the sixties. McManusand Lennigan especially are despised by many club owners who need to make a living out of the game.

  11. #36
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk The Yellow Giraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ashton
    Age
    35
    Posts
    9,623
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    The players have come together today to make a stand against the proposed reduction. Fair play to them. I hope Michael Carter is choking on his cornflakes this morning (not literally of course).

    https://www.totalrl.com/super-league...ap-reductions/
    NEVER WRITE OFF THE SAINTS

  12. #37
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    858
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Mainly because aside from Leeds, they win nothing and are all skint. I suppose Hull have won a couple of cups too if you count them. I'm just thinking, out of the 4 West Riding SL teams, I can't see how they hold so much sway. Ok, Leeds are a big voice, Huddersfield have Davy but seem to keep quiet, Way and Cas, who really cares, they must have support for this from elsewhere. Salford? W***n? HKR, most likely.
    I read somewhere that at least six clubs have come out in favour of reducing the cap, Leeds, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Cas and Wakefield (i.e all the Yorkshire clubs). The clubs are publicly opposed are Saints, Wire, Cats, and I think Wigan, so that leaves Toronto (remember them) and Salford.



    Now it will be interesting

  13. #38
    Learning All The Songs Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,349
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    I read somewhere that at least six clubs have come out in favour of reducing the cap, Leeds, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Cas and Wakefield (i.e all the Yorkshire clubs). The clubs are publicly opposed are Saints, Wire, Cats, and I think Wigan, so that leaves Toronto (remember them) and Salford.



    Now it will be interesting
    I hope players are reminded of this when these clubs are looking to sign them.

  14. #39
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,055
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bostik Bailey View Post
    I read somewhere that at least six clubs have come out in favour of reducing the cap, Leeds, Hull, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Cas and Wakefield (i.e all the Yorkshire clubs). The clubs are publicly opposed are Saints, Wire, Cats, and I think Wigan, so that leaves Toronto (remember them) and Salford.



    Now it will be interesting
    Toronto opposed it. It was all down to Salford.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  15. #40
    Learning All The Songs Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,349
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Toronto opposed it. It was all down to Salford.
    I can't see them wanting to keep the full amount now the Dr has gone.

  16. #41
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,295
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    I hate this. The cap is too low as it is. I don't really understand why anyone would support this, because it isn't as if we have a minimum cap limit. Every club can spend what they want up to the cap. If you don't want to spend it, don't. All this does is harm those who want or can afford to spend the cap. It's the small leading the big, the badly run clubs leading the well run clubs.

    If the likes of Hull KR want the cap cut, there is only one reason. They want an excuse to cut wages without taking any individual flack. As a result, lowering the cap still means they will be crap, but it may also make the chances of the bigger clubs being as good as possible a bit smaller.

    There is a train of thought amongst some fans that we are at our best when everyone is at the same level. Their utopian situation would be a league where every team wins half and loses half, and all teams go into the last ten games with a chance of making the play offs. They often use the NRL as an example of the greatness of having a competitive and tight comp, but the tightness there is between 4-5 teams who are really good in a 16 team comp. 4 or 5 teams every season down there are done and dusted going into the latter stages. They still have the same clubs propping up the ladder year after year and they still have the same clubs that consistently make the Finals and run their operations well at all levels. If every club in the NRL won 12 and lost 12 it would become a joke.

    These fans that favour this are generally fans of clubs that fail year after year to get their act together. They have the money to spend up to the cap, and they either don't, or they do and invest badly. Fans of those clubs accuse fans of the better clubs of being selfish, but how is that so? We are the clubs that persuade Sky to invest in the sport, we are the clubs that get neutrals watching games on TV, yet we don't earn a penny more than those other clubs do in TV revenue, we get the same money every year to spend on our cap, and the system means that we can win 90% of our games and then have to compete in play-offs alongside those that lose half of their games, all in the spirit of artificially creating competition in a league that has already set so many rules to prevent successful clubs dominating.

    I can see the arguments already formulating on the other side of the Pennines about a reduction in the cap being all about dealing with post-Covid 19 issues, but if Sky aren't threatening to cut their owed money for 2021 then the cap can be hit by all clubs, or they can choose to spend some of it elsewhere if they so choose. Those clubs that want to spend their entire cap and can afford to do so should not be hampered by those that cannot or do not want to. This sport is going to need all the luck and good vibes it can get in the coming years. It ain't going to come from increased ratings or sponsorship because all teams are sat on some lowered bar playing tight but low quality games. It will happen because the big clubs have top players and play good games against each other. Nobody outside of this game will care if we have 4-5 top teams dominating and 5-6 not competing. They'll see that as professional sport, where some are better than others. But within our game there are too many that don't see that.

    As I said a day or two ago, it's a race to the bottom.

  17. #42
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    376
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    It seems a case of the teams advocating a reduction in the Salary Cap are doing it to try and reduce the gap between the top teams and the bottom, and therefore increase competitiveness, except all that is going to do in the long run is decrease the quality in the game, better players will leave the game to get fair compensation for their talents and clubs will not be able to recruit similar quality players to replace them.

    All a reduction in salary cap is going to do is exacerbate the talent drain away from the game, reduce the quality, therefore reduce the standard of the product on show, causing a reduction in viewing figures and therefore a reduction in money coming in to the game, it is an incredibly short sighted, narrow minded idea, its that bad its almost like it has been suggested by someone who wants the game to fail.

    I personally would go the other way, work to increase the cap available, we need to try and create the best product possible, and you dont do that through losing your better players, all that does is breed mediocrity, a better product makes it easier to sell to broadcasters and the fans.

  18. #43
    In The South Stand Webbo Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    3,890
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    It seems a case of the teams advocating a reduction in the Salary Cap are doing it to try and reduce the gap between the top teams and the bottom, and therefore increase competitiveness, except all that is going to do in the long run is decrease the quality in the game, better players will leave the game to get fair compensation for their talents and clubs will not be able to recruit similar quality players to replace them.

    All a reduction in salary cap is going to do is exacerbate the talent drain away from the game, reduce the quality, therefore reduce the standard of the product on show, causing a reduction in viewing figures and therefore a reduction in money coming in to the game, it is an incredibly short sighted, narrow minded idea, its that bad its almost like it has been suggested by someone who wants the game to fail.

    I personally would go the other way, work to increase the cap available, we need to try and create the best product possible, and you dont do that through losing your better players, all that does is breed mediocrity, a better product makes it easier to sell to broadcasters and the fans.

    There's a balance that needs to be struck.

    What we don't want is for one club to have way more resources than everyone else and the competitions become a cake walk for that club. We saw it with the scum in the 80's and into the 90's. It led to the competitiveness of the competition draining away and fans of other clubs becoming disillusioned. It led to certain teams spending above their means to try to keep up; Widnes were the biggest victims, but Leeds had a dicey period and if not for McManus & Coleman taking over, we'd have gone under.

    But there needs to be some reward for clubs who attract bigger crowds and generate higher revenues by creating interest in the town/city, having good facilities, and delivering an exciting product on the pitch.

    I personally think the Cap is roughly right at the moment, after being increased in the past couple of years and the introduction of the marquee rule. Perhaps increased to £2.5m once things settle again. Clubs aren't forced to spend it all, and reducing it now only serves to drag the more financially/supported clubs down to the level of those clubs who just seem to *exist* without bringing much to the game. Incidentally, I agree with the idea that the biggest benefit for the sport would be to exempt a chunk of salary for any player you've brought through the academy (even if it's just the first £20k or so).
    I f*cking hate wi*an.

  19. #44
    In The West Stand Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,616
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    RL players other than the odd one or two are not highly paid now, and yet some clubs want to lower their wages.How they think we are going to retain talent and grow the game is beyond me. Many of those player and the youth coming through can probably get a job within commerce/industry paying just as much, and be in a job that doesn't finish by mid 30's. If the yorkieēmafia don't want to spend the cap then they shouldn't sign players on contracts up to the cap limit. The cap has hardly changed since it's inception, and in real terms is worth much less now than it was when it came in. I understand that this season may be tough for some, but these clubs have signed players on contracts for an agreed amount. Players themselves may have financial commitments such as mortgagesēwhich they agreed to based on their contracted salaries. As far as I know nothing has been agreed yet on how the money from the government will be divided up, not on how many games we will play this season. To be calling for a reduction in the SC seems a bit premature.

  20. #45
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,172
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Itís a pathetic proposal orchestrated, mainly, by small clubs whose sole purpose is to hold the game back because they donít have the money to compete. Iím surprised at Leeds given they clearly arenít short of money but no shocks at the rest. The point of the salary cap is to keep the game competitive yet in 24 years of Super league only 4 different teams have been champions with one of those currently in the championship and not winning a grand final since 2005. So clearly the salary cap hasnít worked and only means that the quality of player in the league is lower. Not to mention itís the single biggest reason why the NRL is of a much higher standard. If anything the cap should be significantly increased and the pointless clubs like Wakefield and Hull KR can languish near the bottom, as usual, without stopping the ambitious clubs from improving the overall quality of the league.

  21. #46
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    376
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    There's a balance that needs to be struck.

    What we don't want is for one club to have way more resources than everyone else and the competitions become a cake walk for that club. We saw it with the scum in the 80's and into the 90's. It led to the competitiveness of the competition draining away and fans of other clubs becoming disillusioned. It led to certain teams spending above their means to try to keep up; Widnes were the biggest victims, but Leeds had a dicey period and if not for McManus & Coleman taking over, we'd have gone under.

    But there needs to be some reward for clubs who attract bigger crowds and generate higher revenues by creating interest in the town/city, having good facilities, and delivering an exciting product on the pitch.

    I personally think the Cap is roughly right at the moment, after being increased in the past couple of years and the introduction of the marquee rule. Perhaps increased to £2.5m once things settle again. Clubs aren't forced to spend it all, and reducing it now only serves to drag the more financially/supported clubs down to the level of those clubs who just seem to *exist* without bringing much to the game. Incidentally, I agree with the idea that the biggest benefit for the sport would be to exempt a chunk of salary for any player you've brought through the academy (even if it's just the first £20k or so).
    Webbo i agree, any reduction in the salary cap will not create a balance, it will actively punish teams that grow their own talent by limiting their ability to keep them, clubs like Saints that have excellent academies should receive some sort of dispensation against the cap more than they do now, that way we have a better chance of retaining the players we spent time and money producing. The current measure of £5,000 per player up to £100,000 is a bit of an insult to clubs that produce their own, it should be a minimum of 4 times that, compare it with the £50,000 per player for 8 players that Rugby Union clubs get for their home grown players.

    You are right, there are too many clubs who are happy with their lot, the likes of Huddersfield, Wakefield, Hull KR and to a lesser extent Castleford and Leeds seem happy to be a niche sport and want to see the game become smaller, compare how Super League, the NRL and Rugby Union were in the early 200s to now we are streets behind them in terms of money, quality of product and professionalism, that is a direct result of the narrow-minded insular nature of most owners and the RFL, the sport has needed someone competent at the helm for years and continues to do so.

  22. #47
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    156
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SaintH517 View Post
    Itís a pathetic proposal orchestrated, mainly, by small clubs whose sole purpose is to hold the game back because they donít have the money to compete. Iím surprised at Leeds given they clearly arenít short of money but no shocks at the rest. The point of the salary cap is to keep the game competitive yet in 24 years of Super league only 4 different teams have been champions with one of those currently in the championship and not winning a grand final since 2005. So clearly the salary cap hasnít worked and only means that the quality of player in the league is lower. Not to mention itís the single biggest reason why the NRL is of a much higher standard. If anything the cap should be significantly increased and the pointless clubs like Wakefield and Hull KR can languish near the bottom, as usual, without stopping the ambitious clubs from improving the overall quality of the league.
    Leeds will want a reduced salary cap then they will say ďwe canít afford to run a reserve league ď , the reserves will be scrapped and uncle gaz will get his way and put his players out on dual registration .

  23. #48
    Learning All The Songs Gerry Mander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Around the Ruck. Winning the Collision.
    Posts
    2,097
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    The facts is the salary cap is too high.

    All clubs are pretty much making a loss.

    Sky cover the salary cap.
    Fans pay £25+ per game , top $ for polyester shirts.
    Businesses pay the going rate for rubber chicken dinners.

    Clubs are poorly run and/or paying too much for players against their income.

    I think at this time more than any other people and clubs needs to realise that the
    make believe economic world of sport needs a dose of reality.

    RL should be heading back to part time and to me that is no bad thing.
    The fantasy is that money on players equals Broadway box office, in fact it delivers
    Nandos warriors and a sterile product. The waste of moneyon players should also not be ignored.
    £000Ks dud players and early releases.

    The world has changed , we will all be paying for the several months of sabbatical
    for everyone , and to support the NHS and public services.

    Yet we need to up the salary cap of 12 clubs who are not going concerns
    but want to throw imaginary money at players conditioned to deliver mediocrity.

    People need to wake up.

    If RL was the council any other business, then there would be an upraor as to the money going in against
    the value returned.

  24. #49
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    858
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    https://www.totalrl.com/rfl-to-act-a...aled-to-clubs/

    The government loan is just that and will need to be repaid. It looks like the RFL will use it advance the central money that clubs would receive anyway, and this will be held back to pay off the loan. It is there to stop clubs from going under due to cash flow in the short term.

    Itís not brilliant but it is something that will help to keep clubs afloat, but in order to pay it back they will need to get their act in order and improve their revenue streams. Otherwise they will be on reduced central money for some time. I wonder if this is the reason behind the cap reduction?

  25. #50
    Got A Season Ticket palmorr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    152
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    According to piesports, Greg English is signing for Warrington. If it turns out to be true, what salary cap are they working to?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •