Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45

Thread: NRL Salary Cap Increase

  1. #26
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jul 2022
    Location
    N-L-W
    Posts
    229
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brook View Post
    100k dispensation for club trained players isn't enough imo. If we want to keep the likes of Welsby and Dodd for example in superleague there needs to be more of a dispensation and it to be % of salary based per qualifying player.
    For me, club trained players shouldn’t count on the cap at all. If you’ve taken time and money to run an academy and nurtured a player that makes the grade, you should be able to pay them what you want.

    We should be able to pay the likes of Welsby and Dodd what we like to keep hold of them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #27
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    I think the problem is the RFL have thrown dispensations for the cap around like candy and it’s undermined whatever purpose there was for the cap in the first place. How can the cap claim to be “To prevent Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements;”* and at the same time allow clubs to sign 2 “marquee” players on large contracts which could impact any clubs financial outlook? The dispensation system needs to align to the overall aims of the.

    If the purpose of the cap is to “encourage sustainable development of clubs business whilst building and sustaining talent within the U.K”, you could then set the cap against a clubs tangible assets, specifically excluding Stadiums/ training facilities which clubs shouldn’t be using for collateral, whilst not dragging everyone down to Wakefields level. Dispensation for homegrown talent and non traditional development routes (like Walmsley coming from the student game) can be built in, and retaining the RU poaching dispensations (which let’s face it that’s what the “new talent pool” is). Then at least the aims of the cap and the dispensations are aligned in their purpose

    * https://www.rugby-league.com/salary-cap




    I don’t profess to know all the intricacies of the SC, but for me 100k dispensation across the whole squad is not incentive enough to encourage more youth development in other clubs.

    Rather than have a fixed ceiling, I would prefer something along the lines of each club trained player not count more than say eg 40k on the cap. So a team with 8 club trained players each 75k would get 280k dispensation. Obviously the actual amounts would need to be decided

  3. #28
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I don’t profess to know all the intricacies of the SC, but for me 100k dispensation across the whole squad is not incentive enough to encourage more youth development in other clubs.

    Rather than have a fixed ceiling, I would prefer something along the lines of each club trained player not count more than say eg 40k on the cap. So a team with 8 club trained players each 75k would get 280k dispensation. Obviously the actual amounts would need to be decided
    I like this idea. Maybe even some sort of incremental rise so that the more home grown players in the first team squad the greater the amount of cap dispensation.

  4. #29
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I don’t profess to know all the intricacies of the SC, but for me 100k dispensation across the whole squad is not incentive enough to encourage more youth development in other clubs.

    Rather than have a fixed ceiling, I would prefer something along the lines of each club trained player not count more than say eg 40k on the cap. So a team with 8 club trained players each 75k would get 280k dispensation. Obviously the actual amounts would need to be decided
    For the record, I totally agree. However the stated purpose of the cap is to stop clubs overspending and putting their existence at risk, and granting potentially unlimited exemptions to that totally undermines the purpose of the cap in the first place.

    Which is why IMG first need to answer; is the purpose of the cap as it stands right (in my opinion no, as it has demonstrably failed in the purposes it currently sets out)? Does the purpose of the cap need to evolve, allowing for more opportunities, like creating bigger rewards for developing elite players (yes) or if an actual purpose for the cap can’t be found, remove it all together, and introduce other financial controls for the clubs.

    The risk you also have with making major discounts for home grown players is it makes longevity planning incredibly difficult. Saints will have a tough enough job replacing Roby as it is, if they have to do it with half the cap space Roby needed, then it’s just becomes all that more difficult. Whilst I absolutely think clubs need to be given every tool and reason for developing and retaining talent, it feels a very likely thing to have the law of unintended consequences. There’s also the issue of how it would impact the amateur game; if clubs get major discounts for anyone who makes it, there would be nothing stopping them packing their academies just to say they did their 3 years and if they then go off and make it through the championship or wherever than getting the credit. There would likely need to quite a significant number of changes to how academies work put in place in conjunction with new cap rules (none of which I’m against, but given how lazy most clubs are in this space I worry it would ever get the traction)

  5. #30
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sthelens
    Posts
    669
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    For the record, I totally agree. However the stated purpose of the cap is to stop clubs overspending and putting their existence at risk, and granting potentially unlimited exemptions to that totally undermines the purpose of the cap in the first place.

    Which is why IMG first need to answer; is the purpose of the cap as it stands right (in my opinion no, as it has demonstrably failed in the purposes it currently sets out)? Does the purpose of the cap need to evolve, allowing for more opportunities, like creating bigger rewards for developing elite players (yes) or if an actual purpose for the cap can’t be found, remove it all together, and introduce other financial controls for the clubs.

    The risk you also have with making major discounts for home grown players is it makes longevity planning incredibly difficult. Saints will have a tough enough job replacing Roby as it is, if they have to do it with half the cap space Roby needed, then it’s just becomes all that more difficult. Whilst I absolutely think clubs need to be given every tool and reason for developing and retaining talent, it feels a very likely thing to have the law of unintended consequences. There’s also the issue of how it would impact the amateur game; if clubs get major discounts for anyone who makes it, there would be nothing stopping them packing their academies just to say they did their 3 years and if they then go off and make it through the championship or wherever than getting the credit. There would likely need to quite a significant number of changes to how academies work put in place in conjunction with new cap rules (none of which I’m against, but given how lazy most clubs are in this space I worry it would ever get the traction)
    Do Australian rugby league subsidise the 17 NRL teams to fund this enormous salary cap compared to Super League because they surely can't generate that kind of money through the regular channels eg gate reciepts merchandise etc

  6. #31
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,522
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philthompson View Post
    Do Australian rugby league subsidise the 17 NRL teams to fund this enormous salary cap compared to Super League because they surely can't generate that kind of money through the regular channels eg gate reciepts merchandise etc
    They have a 2billion dollar TV deal over 5 years.

  7. #32
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brook View Post
    They have a 2billion dollar TV deal over 5 years.
    And most have league clubs which have massive earnings in comparison to the rugby money. Penriths leagues club makes around $35m a year according to https://growjo.com/company/Penrith_Panthers so even if the NRL just wiped the clubs faces in terms of top 30 salaries, there’s still masses of money floating around.

  8. #33
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brook View Post
    They have a 2billion dollar TV deal over 5 years.
    Wow! It’s their national sport I suppose. No way we can compete financially with that I expect. That must be Australian dollars but it’s still a lot of dough

  9. #34
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,522
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Wow! It’s their national sport I suppose. No way we can compete financially with that I expect. That must be Australian dollars but it’s still a lot of dough
    Yes it's Aus dollars,but as you rightly say it's a lot,roughly x10 per year more than our tv deal with sky. When you add to that what MSB said about the league clubs and the income they generate we just can't compete.

  10. #35
    Learning All The Songs The Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows
    Age
    50
    Posts
    1,921
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    What hasn’t been factored in is that the priority for NRL clubs once this happens is to use the increase to target the superstars of their own comp who are up for grabs, the likes of Cameron Munster will be the subject of a bidding war. The players are also demanding more money having taken pay cut/freeze during Covid. They want to be “compensated” for the money they lost.

    I know there is a risk, there always has been and always will be, but I don’t think it will be as drastic as it could be.

  11. #36
    Learning All The Songs Mike Stephenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    1,612
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Chief View Post
    What hasn’t been factored in is that the priority for NRL clubs once this happens is to use the increase to target the superstars of their own comp who are up for grabs, the likes of Cameron Munster will be the subject of a bidding war. The players are also demanding more money having taken pay cut/freeze during Covid. They want to be “compensated” for the money they lost.

    I know there is a risk, there always has been and always will be, but I donÂ’t think it will be as drastic as it could be.
    Munster has already re-signed with Storm and is now contracted until end of 2027, but see what you're saying Chief...

    We know players registered on a minimum salary are getting a pay rise and sure we will see a rise in what the elite players can command too. I think the highest earner at the moment is Clearly, on $1.3 million and as players of this calibre become off contract in future years, you can see that figure increasing further. So the 25% increase can quite easily be swallowed up on development players and renewals. I've said before that if an increase in cap can keep the highest rated young players like Suaali'i in the sport, then I'm all for it.

    It's perhaps the other plan of wanting to increase the number of teams to 18 come the next renewal date for the TV deal (which I believe is 2028), that could compound the risk. Let's see how the Dolphins go this year, but I think some of the players they've signed, would've likely moved to SL. They've struggled to make marquee signings and another new franchise trying to find 30 players capable of being competitive in the NRL in the not too distant future, is a big ask of their talent pool alone. I think Bateman's move back to the NRL is an example of the flexing of the financial muscle the NRL has over SL and also showing the lengths Wests were willing to go to, even to sign a player who hasn't been at his best for a couple seasons now. For Bateman to get a four-year contract at 29 is an offer to good to refuse for him.

    We could very well see more of our players wanting to go over there and less players coming the other way as well.

    .
    Last edited by Mike Stephenson; 3rd January 2023 at 00:02.
    *Not to be confused with Mike Stephenson, MBE

  12. #37
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Well said, itÂ’s an alarming situation requiring root and branch change. Change needs to happen pretty quickly too. In the new world of media Sky shouldnÂ’t be the only potential source, I think theyÂ’ve kept the game afloat for 20 years but not actually aided itÂ’s development. So much has to change its hard to know where to begin. I think the plan to grade clubs at A,B or C is a good step, scrapping the salary cap would be a good move as well in my view and ending promotion and relegation. ItÂ’s also time to stop protecting clubs that consistently finish in the bottom 3 but donÂ’t get relegated.

    A move to part time professionalism isnÂ’t far away in view with all the attendant various losses that would follow
    I don't think scrapping the salary cap is the way forward, the original reason for the salary cap still exists and if you look at Premiership Rugby Union they have the opposite problem that the cap doesn't prevent clubs from overspending at all.

    I feel that the new "RFL Commercial" entity which sounds like an RFL owned Superleague Ltd, needs some sort of player representation on it. For example, when Sky upped the TV money when the Super 8's were announced a few years back, there needed to be a voice from the players asking for their cut. Instead the owners just licked their lips and pocketed the money. There needs to be a balance between the growth of player wages and the sustainability of the clubs as businesses.

    There needs to be some sort of agreement going forward that the cap will increase, allowing clubs to pay the best players more. As well as a proper minimum wage to protect players from financial issues themselves.

    As you said, a genuine hybrid model that has both on and off field criteria, one of which is the ability to pay players good wages, is required to ensure club succeed on the pitch by first succeeding off the pitch. It seems grossly unfair that a club like Warrington is threatened by relegation when they could easily be able to afford to pay players twice as much as they currently do but are not allowed because of a low salary cap.

    In addition we need to reintroduce central payments for international players, but this time expand it to all European nations. This is desperately needed to help boost international RL in the Northern Hemisphere. Things are getting embarrassing at the World Cup and we need to invest in a proper European Nations competition.
    Last edited by Noel Cleal; 3rd January 2023 at 15:44.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  13. #38
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel Cleal View Post
    I don't think scrapping the salary cap is the way forward, the original reason for the salary cap still exists and if you look at Premiership Rugby Union they have the opposite problem that the cap doesn't prevent clubs from overspending at all.

    I feel that the new "RFL Commercial" entity which sounds like an RFL owned Superleague Ltd, needs some sort of player representation on it. For example, when Sky upped the TV money when the Super 8's were announced a few years back, there needed to be a voice from the players asking for their cut. Instead the owners just licked their lips and pocketed the money. There needs to be a balance between the growth of player wages and the sustainability of the clubs as businesses.

    There needs to be some sort of agreement going forward that the cap will increase, allowing clubs to pay the best players more. As well as a proper minimum wage to protect players from financial issues themselves.

    As you said, a genuine hybrid model that has both on and off field criteria, one of which is the ability to pay players good wages, is required to ensure club succeed on the pitch by first succeeding off the pitch. It seems grossly unfair that a club like Warrington is threatened by relegation when they could easily be able to afford to pay players twice as much as they currently do but are not allowed because of a low salary cap.

    In addition we need to reintroduce central payments for international players, but this time expand it to all European nations. This is desperately needed to help boost international RL in the Northern Hemisphere. Things are getting embarrassing at the World Cup and we need to invest in a proper European Nations competition.
    Yes. Debate on here has convinced me that scrapping the cap completely isn’t the way to go but radical redesign is needed I think

  14. #39
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,211
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Yes. Debate on here has convinced me that scrapping the cap completely isn’t the way to go but radical redesign is needed I think
    I think we need both a lower limit, which teams cannot spend below, and an upper limit higher than what it currently is, along with more incentives for clubs producing their own players, something like a discount of say up to 25k per player off their contract, look at the Marquee rule a homegrown marquee player is worth 75k against a non-homegrown player at 150k.
    Last edited by Tomsepho; 3rd January 2023 at 16:35.

  15. #40
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    679
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Stephenson View Post
    Munster has already re-signed with Storm and is now contracted until end of 2027, but see what you're saying Chief...

    We know players registered on a minimum salary are getting a pay rise and sure we will see a rise in what the elite players can command too. I think the highest earner at the moment is Clearly, on $1.3 million and as players of this calibre become off contract in future years, you can see that figure increasing further. So the 25% increase can quite easily be swallowed up on development players and renewals. I've said before that if an increase in cap can keep the highest rated young players like Suaali'i in the sport, then I'm all for it.

    It's perhaps the other plan of wanting to increase the number of teams to 18 come the next renewal date for the TV deal (which I believe is 2028), that could compound the risk. Let's see how the Dolphins go this year, but I think some of the players they've signed, would've likely moved to SL. They've struggled to make marquee signings and another new franchise trying to find 30 players capable of being competitive in the NRL in the not too distant future, is a big ask of their talent pool alone. I think Bateman's move back to the NRL is an example of the flexing of the financial muscle the NRL has over SL and also showing the lengths Wests were willing to go to, even to sign a player who hasn't been at his best for a couple seasons now. For Bateman to get a four-year contract at 29 is an offer to good to refuse for him.

    We could very well see more of our players wanting to go over there and less players coming the other way as well.

    .
    on your last point, there are only 17 NRL clubs so at roughly 25 players per club there are only around 425 NRL squad places available, so if and when they do snap up every young English player, there are going to be a good number of decent Aussie players who cant get a spot over there and make themselves available to come to Super League.

  16. #41
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    I think we need both a lower limit, which teams cannot spend below, and an upper limit higher than what it currently is, along with more incentives for clubs producing their own players, something like a discount of say up to 25k per player off their contract, look at the Marquee rule a homegrown marquee player is worth 75k against a non-homegrown player at 150k.
    I think the simplest way of doing it is like the NFL does it. The equivalent for us is that the 3rd to the 25th best paid players are a part of the cap with a minimum wage. So your top two players (marquee) are just not counted and everyone outside your main squad isn't either but they are guaranteed a sensible wage. The way we have it is overly complicated.

    Regarding home grown rule. I am not sure if that is particularly fair long term. Saints/Wigan/Leeds already have a massive advantage with their academies. You can allow them to afford to keep players by aiming to increase the cap to say £3m over the next 3 to 5 years.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  17. #42
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel Cleal View Post
    Regarding home grown rule. I am not sure if that is particularly fair long term. Saints/Wigan/Leeds already have a massive advantage with their academies. You can allow them to afford to keep players by aiming to increase the cap to say £3m over the next 3 to 5 years.
    One of the main complaints from teams is about how they invest into players to get them to a standard only for them to leave (I think I read somewhere the average SL player costs a club £50k in development investment before they make it) so maybe you can solve both problems by linking the salary cap dispensation to the amount invested in academies? The more clubs spend on facilites/coaches/academy contracts, the more dispensation they get off the first team cap? That way clubs see a benefit whether players stays or not, and encourages clubs that could do more to develop players to do more (thinking of Warrington here). Doesnt do anything for the stated aims of the salary cap, but would better allow teams to keep their top home grown teams, coupled with encouraging more teams to invest more in their academies.

    The problem with just increasing the cap is balancing it with inflationary pressures. Increasing the cap to £3m over the next 5 years will probably see the same players/ same standard of players, but on increased wages (as the NRL is facing at the moment) - thats no bad thing by any stretch, but it wouldnt do much to allow for clubs to compete more readily with NRL teams

  18. #43
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,211
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel Cleal View Post
    I think the simplest way of doing it is like the NFL does it. The equivalent for us is that the 3rd to the 25th best paid players are a part of the cap with a minimum wage. So your top two players (marquee) are just not counted and everyone outside your main squad isn't either but they are guaranteed a sensible wage. The way we have it is overly complicated.

    Regarding home grown rule. I am not sure if that is particularly fair long term. Saints/Wigan/Leeds already have a massive advantage with their academies. You can allow them to afford to keep players by aiming to increase the cap to say £3m over the next 3 to 5 years.
    They have that advantage because they chose to invest in them, what if they decide they dont want to do that anymore, have to cut back for a few years or have a bad few years, near enough the entire sport in this country would suffer, its not sustainable to be reliant on a small number of clubs like we are. You say its not fair on other clubs as 3 have an advantage due to their academies, i say its unfair on those clubs as they can lose talent they have invested time and money in to for nothing due to them having to spread money around to more of their homegrown players compared to those who dont produce players.

  19. #44
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    They have that advantage because they chose to invest in them, what if they decide they dont want to do that anymore, have to cut back for a few years or have a bad few years, near enough the entire sport in this country would suffer, its not sustainable to be reliant on a small number of clubs like we are. You say its not fair on other clubs as 3 have an advantage due to their academies, i say its unfair on those clubs as they can lose talent they have invested time and money in to for nothing due to them having to spread money around to more of their homegrown players compared to those who dont produce players.
    My point was they get enough of an advantage by having a good academy. If Saints just binned off the academy the next players like Welsby, Dodd, Percival, Makinson, Lomax, Roby, Wellens, Cunningham, Murphy.... will never come into the team. Without our academy we are just another team, that is surely enough? If clubs can't see the value of producing players without some extra incentive they doomed from the start.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  20. #45
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    362
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    A way around it may be to look at the criteria that they are putting into place for the "new" Super League and each clubs salary cap is based their individual performance against those criteria.
    It may skew the figures to start with but also may provide an impetus for the clubs that retain their place in the top division without actually adding much to the equation.
    The better your club, the more you get to spend?

Posting Permissions

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