Salary Cap idea

[East Coast Tiger]

I think they could make a change to the salary cap rule that could benefit the game and all clubs. It would allow the rich clubs to spend more than 1.8m which does have its benefits, like keeping the best players in the game and even allowing clubs to attract players fom union like used to happen. In some ways it's also only fair that if a club can raise enough money to spend more than 1.8m it should be allowed to. The income percentage rule would still apply. It could also keep the smaller clubs competitive.

This idea may have come up before, I can't remember, but here it is:
Clubs can spend over 1.8m legally, but for every pound over they must give one pound to the RFL (which is what pretty much happens now when they are fined). That money could then be spent on development of the game or could even be shared among the poorer clubs, pushing their income up and in turn allowing them to spend a little more on players. It means poor clubs can benefit from the rich ones. If rich clubs didn't want to spend over the cap because they don't want the other clubs to have any of their cash, well that would be up to them.

It just means that we are potentially maximising the amount of money in the player market, which hopefully means we won't lose the likes of Farrell, Robinson etc and we may even be able to sign a few good union players. It also might allow clubs to keep their locally produced players, something I am a believer in. There may be some problems with the idea but I think it might be worth looking at.

Thoughts?

 

[deluded pom?]

The players we have lost to union were replaced by younger players coming through . If players want to go to union then let them . As for giving the rich clubs carte blanche to spend what they like , not a good idea . The likes of Wigan would just go out and sign all the top players available to them and not worry about any excess they have to pay as long as it gets them the title . The extra prize money and revenue from a winning team would more than cancel out any extra money they'd spend . Parity of spending power for all clubs is the only way forward . I personally believe that all merchandising and gate money should be pooled and then shared out on an equal basis among all clubs in SL . Obviously this would have to be controlled so that a club doesn't just sit back and do nothing to generate as much of their potential income as possible and just take the easy money .

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But is it the way forward? Sounds like its holding the game back really. It's like keeping a smart kid back in a class full of geniuss just so its fair on everybody. If rich clubs want to spend the money the poorer clubs receive revenue as a result. It means that everybody has more money to spend. And it's not as if the salary cap is really providing an even playing field, more even perhaps but the disparity is still clear.

As far as Wigan buying the title, isn't that what every non-Wigan fan is oh so predictably claiming they are doing now?

 

[Evil Homer]

I agree with deluded pom - Wigan would just buy the league again like they did in the 80s and 90s.

I think the salary cap is slowly working - we are seeing teams like Huddersfield in the Cup Final,Salford in the top 6 at the expense of Wigan etc.

I think what would be best for the competition would be a flat cap of 1.8mil,although this could only really be brought into place once P&R was scrapped(the unpredictability of the competition would mean undeserving teams could go down).

I don't think the smart kid analogy works - fans want to see a competitive,vibrant league,rather than one where the outcome was obvious after the first few games(a la the Premiership with Chelsea).Sure,with the analogy there would be one outstanding team,but the rest would be mediocre because of that.If anything,one club running away with the league would hold the game back far more than all teams being equal,IMO anyway.

 

[deluded pom?]

If you want to use the smart kid anology then just imagine , Wigan / Leeds sign up all the top junior talent as well as a topline senior squad . A young talented player would be stifled at either club for years to come . Wigan / Leeds decide that this kid isn't going to be released to strengthen another club . The kid then languishes in reserve grade wasting his talents and stunting his progress . If either team were to struggle in a certain position then what do you think they would do ? Turn to the talented kid in reserve grade or sign a top class player from either another SL club or the NRL ? I'm pretty sure I'd know what the answer would be . The cap has to be an equal one or it's just not worth having . We need to look at ways of creating a cap that can be achieved by ALL clubs , but as Homer points out the P&R situation stifles the concept of parity for all . I don't know what the ideal situation is but a free for all isn't it .

 

[bartman]

The idea of the money given back to the other clubs to spend is good, but it may not bring all of them up to the 1.8. My worry is that then the richer ones will be allowed to spend over that and continue to dominate the competition. I think only six teams can legally get up to the 1.8 limit now (using the 50% of revenue calculation), and funnily enough they are your current top six - minus Salford but including Wigan.

I'm hesitant to give the richer clubs any help in spending more money when the other clubs can't afford it. In my view we've got to come up with ways to make the lower six superleague clubs sustainable at the level of the current salary cap and then develop the game at the levels below as well, especially when last year only three clubs from twelve were in profit according to the league's figures?

We can't let the high flyers to become more self interested, but somehow we need them to show the way and bring everyone along together with them. And who's to say they won't plow any extra money straight into acquiring overseas imports anyway? We're still missing that incentive for clubs to develop their junior players...

So even though we might lose one or two players to Union in the meantime, those at the end of their career (Farrell) don't matter, and those like Chev Walker can be replaced and will be forgotten. I think a successful even competition can create more genuine interest (and revenue, and therefore development) than ocaasional signing one or two star players.

 

[bartman]

How about this for a half baked about promoting development of a clubs junior players through to Superleague? Because the overseas quota may be tricky to change and clubs/players get around it anyway, how about giving clubs some sort of salary cap exemption for players that have come through Academy into the club's Superleague squad?

Given that half the clubs are poor, a straight exemption may not be the way to go, as the club still has to pay the wage and half wouldn't have the money to go and spend some extra, while the other six would. For the same reason an adjustment to the 20-20 rule (say to 21-20) wouldn't do the job either...

It needs to be on some sort of grant basis (if the league can get extra money in through the next TV deal) - or maybe just a match-day thing that all clubs have to have two such players in their 18 man squad each week or face a penalty (deduction from their salary cap amount or a reduced percentage). That would soon see some clubs pay more attention to their Ac ademy sides, and try and develop quality talent right through instead of always buying from elsewhere as a first option.

Still thinking this through...

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I don't think it would broaden the gap between the top and bottom that much. It wouldn't be one club buying the title surely. Wigan is not the only club capable of spending over the cap, in fact it seems most of them are doing that in one way or another. Wigan, Wire, Leeds, Hull and even Saints could probably spend over the 1.8m. Remember under the idea a club has to come up with the money to but extra players and then double it to pay the RFL. What's more this may be the only way clubs like Wakey, Cas and Salford can gain enough income to reach 1.8m. I don't think the comp would be predictable either. At the start of this year Wigan was one of the favourites but they are near the bottom. It shows how a club paying more for its squad doesn't always have more success. Clubs wouldn't be able to sign up huge squads so long as there is a 20-20 rule. It would just mean the top 20 would probably be the best 20, but that is pretty much the same now. It just means the best players will earn a little more and hopefully clubs will be able to offer more money to lure union players over and keep any that want to go the other way like Walker and Robinson. I remember when Wigan were talking to Jonah Lomu about switching. Now it never happened but imagine how huge it would be to have players like that switching these days. It can't really happen now because of the cap.

As for the junior exemption it's something I've always been a fan of in Australian terms and I don't see why it can't work in England. Of course the clubs with the best juniors are Leeds and Wigan atm so it would probably benefit them most. But hopefully it would prompt a bit of action from the other clubs to try and build their local junior base and develop their talent.

 

[Evil Homer]

If it's not broke,don't fix it

 

[bartman]

I'd forgotten that you meant big clubs would spend double, which reduces the advantage they'd get. I just want to see more money come into the game before it opens itself to spending more - the temptation for clubs to go beyond their means for the sake of success (especially in National Leagues) is already too great.