No salary cap whatsoever - would it be so bad?

[LineBall]

The salary cap was originally brought in to stop clubs going broke, rather than to even out the competition. It also protects players from signing for big money, only to find that the club can't afford it and they will be only paid 50 cents in the dollar.

The fact that it does even out the playing talent between teams can be both viewed as a positive and a negative. Those on the negative side would say that it makes the one club player extremely rare, and also promotes mediocrity with the standard of football. Those on the positive side would say that every team that starts the season would at least think they are a chance of making the finals, so prolongs supporters interest in their team, and thus helps with attendances and memberships etc.

The Holy Grail would be having a Salary Cap that protects clubs from themselves - but also allows players to earn whatever the market is willing to pay.

Perhaps modifying the cap would come closer to acheiving this, such as having players salaries count less towards the cap over time. Say a player who has been with the club for 5 years, then only 80% of their salary should count towards the cap, the next year 70% etc, etc. Allow players who have been with a club for say 10 years, to have absolutely no restrictions on third party sponsorships. Also allow clubs one marquee player whose salary doesn't count towards the cap - which can be paid for by the club or wholly by third party agreements.

 

[madunit]

I thought the English Super League had a salary cap now?

It does now, but it's only a recent addition when you look over the entirety of their history

 

[kdalymc]

Ahem... European super league boys...

 

[madunit]

Its only European now. It was English before it was called Superleague (Stones Bitter Cup etc etc)

 

[firechild]

Those on the negative side would say that it makes the one club player extremely rare, and also promotes mediocrity with the standard of football.

Both are absolute crap.

There is a pretty decent list of current players that are one club players, even if you only include those that have played for say 6 years or more. Cam Smith, Billy Slater, Cooper Cronk, Brett Stewart, Glenn Stewart, Jason King, Steve Matai, Matt Ballin, David Williams, Anthony Watmough just looking at Manly and Melbourne. Lack of one club players is a myth.

If you want mediocrity, have a look at the EPL and watch the lesser 3/4 of the clubs play. With only 4 or 5 clubs in with a chance at winning each year, the majority of the comp is mediocre.

 

[Canard]

The salary cap was originally brought in to stop clubs going broke, rather than to even out the competition.

Ive never seen any evidence of this to be honest. I think the first and foremost reason the Cap was brought in was to ensure parity across the League.

If you want mediocrity, have a look at the EPL and watch the lesser 3/4 of the clubs play. With only 4 or 5 clubs in with a chance at winning each year, the majority of the comp is mediocre.

Its really only been 3 clubs capable of winning it until very recently and really only 2 prior to that time.

 

[Knightmare]

Yeah. They arranged for both the knights and eels to choke in the last 10mins of those matches so the dogs could make the grand final :crazy:

Knights were picked off well before the finals. Just a coincidence that no Superleague clubs had totally "random" drug tests pulled on them?

 

[Canard]

Knights were picked off well before the finals. Just a coincidence that no Superleague clubs had totally "random" drug tests pulled on them?

You mean besides Rodney Howe and the Melbourne Storm???

 

[byrner]

To answer this you have to determine the purpose of the cap. 1) to keep clubs from going broke 2) to keep the comp even. If you agree with both of these then you keep the current cap. If you only want to keep clubs from going broke then you change the cap to a soft cap. If you believe in neither then scrap.the cap all together. There are pros and cons to all three options; either way I will continue to watch my eels choke next time we get to the finals. Ahh how I long for the days when we chocked in the finals!

 

[LineBall]

Both are absolute crap.

There is a pretty decent list of current players that are one club players, even if you only include those that have played for say 6 years or more. Cam Smith, Billy Slater, Cooper Cronk, Brett Stewart, Glenn Stewart, Jason King, Steve Matai, Matt Ballin, David Williams, Anthony Watmough just looking at Manly and Melbourne. Lack of one club players is a myth.

If you want mediocrity, have a look at the EPL and watch the lesser 3/4 of the clubs play. With only 4 or 5 clubs in with a chance at winning each year, the majority of the comp is mediocre.

I don't agree that the one club players are a thing of the past either, but you would have been better off listing guys like Nathan hindmarsh, or Darren Lockyer in your example,rather than current players.

 

[LineBall]

Ive never seen any evidence of this to be honest. I think the first and foremost reason the Cap was brought in was to ensure parity across the League.



Its really only been 3 clubs capable of winning it until very recently and really only 2 prior to that time.

Here is some evidence for you.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/quayle-says-cap-must-stay/story-e6frexnr-1225874736337

 

[firechild]

I don't agree that the one club players are a thing of the past either, but you would have been better off listing guys like Nathan hindmarsh, or Darren Lockyer in your example,rather than current players.

Yeah, but listing past players kinda lends support to the notion that one club players are a thing of the past. Hindmarsh, Burt, Lockyer and Menzies all had long stints at one club but there are plenty of players running round now that will play either all or the vast majority of their career at one club. I don't think there is anything to really support the idea that they are a thing of the past.

I also realise you simply said it was an argument used by those against the idea of a salary cap and not necessarily your views. My post wasn't intended to be aimed at you but rather at the argument that is used.

 

[firechild]

Its really only been 3 clubs capable of winning it until very recently and really only 2 prior to that time.

That could be right, I have no interest in soccer. From what I've seen/read/heard I figured it was between ManU, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and more recently Man City but I'm happy to be corrected as it doesn't remotely interest me.

 

[LineBall]

Yeah, but listing past players kinda lends support to the notion that one club players are a thing of the past. Hindmarsh, Burt, Lockyer and Menzies all had long stints at one club but there are plenty of players running round now that will play either all or the vast majority of their career at one club. I don't think there is anything to really support the idea that they are a thing of the past.

I also realise you simply said it was an argument used by those against the idea of a salary cap and not necessarily your views. My post wasn't intended to be aimed at you but rather at the argument that is used.

Yeah, you're right. You often forget some of the players who aren't superstars who spend their entire career at one club too.

Fire, what is your opinion of the cap? As I have said earlier, some concessions to the cap would be great. Would have been nice to see someone like Steve Menzies still playing for manly.

 

[Canard]

Here is some evidence for you.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/quayle-says-cap-must-stay/story-e6frexnr-1225874736337

That article doesn't state that the cap was brought in to stop clubs going broke at all.

Quayle just claims that it is a reason not to scrap it and it was part of the reason not THE sole reason as claimed.

 

[Slackboy72]

That could be right, I have no interest in soccer. From what I've seen/read/heard I figured it was between ManU, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and more recently Man City but I'm happy to be corrected as it doesn't remotely interest me.

To put it in perspective Tottenham who are about the 5th biggest club in england (by revenue) and spend less than 60% of what Man U do and less than half of what Chelsea do. They can not even begin to entertain thoughts of mixing it with the top 3 without selling themselves to a billionaire. Do you want that in rugby league? Or would you prefer the NFL model where even teams running last in their divisions will still pull big ratings and crowds because more than likely the game will be close and competitive.

 

[Canard]

That could be right, I have no interest in soccer. From what I've seen/read/heard I figured it was between ManU, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and more recently Man City but I'm happy to be corrected as it doesn't remotely interest me.

It was between Man U and Arsenal for the first 12 or so years.

Then some billionaire bought Chelsea then another Man City.

It works in England because the game is so ingrained and the English seem to love a hopeless cause.

It would be an unmitigated disaster in Australia.

 

[Óglaigh na hÉireann]

Get rid of the cap and only the richest clubs in the comp would have any chance of success.

Would be a pretty boring comp for mine if that were to happen.

 

[LineBall]

That article doesn't state that the cap was brought in to stop clubs going broke at all.

Quayle just claims that it is a reason not to scrap it and it was part of the reason not THE sole reason as claimed.

Nice way to contradict yourself there.

In the article he clearly refers to clubs being unable to meet their obligations towards player's wages. Norther in the article does he say that the cap was first and foremost a method of creating a more even competition.

 

[Canard]

Thats not evidence that the cap was solely instituted that reason.That he doesn't say it in that one newspaper article?