You might want to tell Nigel Wood about his mistake then

"Wood calls the game's salary cap a "very definite and deliberate attempt to assist clubs to be able to develop on a sustainable basis" and says the RFL is heading for another year of profit."

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/georgeriley/2012/05/in_a_week_that_has.html[/url

Frankly, I don't think they even know quite what they're trying to achieve with a cap. Feels a lot more like "we want a cap, let's justify it", rather than what it should be: "OK, here are the problems we want to avoid, alongside the income and sponsorship opportunities we want to create, now, how can we structure a set of financial controls to facilitate that?"

I agree. Do the RFL have the expertise to police the cap through out the year in its current form? Its seems to be easier to administer an overall cap spend rather than a percentage of turn over. Wonder if this was the reason it was brought in?

Despite what was oft read on the Wigan forum until a few years ago, the salary cap does not stop any club building a successful, or even dominant, team.

In his 2009 Grand Final interview, Kevin Sinfield inferred that Leeds were by no means the best payers in SL and that, if they wanted to, any one of that final-winning team could earn more money playing elsewhere. Yes, Leeds spend the full cap and Sinfield especially is not exactly badly paid, but the point stands - I'd imagine that the same is true at St Helens.

If you build a team who are motivated by achievement on the field, rather than fiscal gain, then you'll have a very successful side.

Salary cap protects no one. It only serves to level the playing field and make 50/60 point drubbings along with only a handful of clubs actually winning anything and of course stop clubs going bust, a thing of the past. Wait a mo, it doesn't even do that. It's the worst thing ever introduced into this fine game. It stifles innovation, stops richer clubs helping out poorer clubs by buying their best players and thwarts ambitious clubs from expanding. It's a disaster and they should bin it straight away.

There's also the OP's repeating of this assumed fact that Bradford's current plight comes from what they've spent on players.

The salary cap is there to both prevent one club monopolizing the best players and to try and prevent the boom and bust culture that has been so damaging in football.

I think using Leeds as an example is a little skewed, given that the way Leeds put together a successful side was to get in a lot of decent young lads and offer them long term deals on shorter money. Which, tbh is a good idea because it means you keep a solid core in the team for the long term which helps the club build and it means that you still have available funds to spend on the occasional big name to bolster the side.

There's a salary cap in SL? Someone needs to tell the clubs!

Blunt instrument, true - but there is something to be said for simplicity. That said, in principle (I won't quibble on the details, as it is just an example) I've no major issues with your model. RL struggles under the burden of regulations piled ever higher ad hoc. We need regulations, but any new ones need to be put together to form a cohesive whole [ireplacing[/i old ones, not adding to them.




No doubt. Plus there's the issue of moving house or putting up with a commute for a 2 year deal, and the much greater chance of international honours. And players on decent wages will only get 60% of the 'extra' another club offers (higher tax rate is 40% I think?).
If I'm earning 60k at Saints for example, and Hull KR come in with an offer of £80k at first glance it might be worth considering. But I 'only' get another £12k in my pocket, I've got to relocate and my chance of medals and caps is much diminished. There's no way I'm moving to London with its silly cost of living and even more uncompetitive team for less than £100k. The cap has to some extent failed, or failed to do too much damage from another POV, because of a lack of fluidity in the RL labour market.

How the frig does the salary cap stifle innovation? If anything it encourages it.

Really, i thought it was brought in for exactly that clubs couldn't spend more than 50% of their income on wages. evening up the teams was just a side effect.

[urlhttp://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3746,en_41462537_41454856_41476947_1_1_1_1,00.html[/url
Clubs with less dosh can't keep up with the innovation (cheating) of the richer clubs (Warrington), ergo stifling their innovation. Innovation is supposed to improve things, the salary cap has not.

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, and I really don't mean it personally or anything, but wtf are you on about?

What are you struggling with??

It's a sign of communism, I tells thee!

Hasn't that been mentioned yet?

The entire concept, obviously. Are you seriously suggesting the salary cap should be removed because it prevents clubs cheating?

It was brought in for exactly that reason.


No it was not.


Player salaries is the biggest expense. Putting a limit on that is the most effective way of stopping clubs going bust.

All of it. In what way does a salary cap stifle innovation? What is the link between innovation and "cheating"?

As I said, if anything a salary cap encourages innovation because the money that would have been spent on player wages with no cap in place can be spent elsewhere.

The SC is a waste of space as the RFL don't monitor it.
The clubs have to declare to the RFL salaries of their top 25 highest players. The RFL don't then monitor or check this.
They don't check players tax returns or bank accounts. The whole exercise therefore is utterly worthless.
How can you know what each player is receiving in remuneration if you don't check his personal financial details?

It was brought in for both reasons, but the 50% of income rule that was part of the cap was done away with a few years ago (not that that rule would have helped Bradford anyway). It's undeniable that the cap has helped restrict spending and that it has stopped the big clubs from signing all the best players. The extent to which it has done that and the extent to which it should in the future is debatable.


Not at Leeds it's not.
Whilst I'd agree player salaries are a large expense for clubs, they're also the most predictable expense, yet clubs seem to struggle hugely to control that expense for some reason.

How many outstanding or even very good players are there at the bottom 4 clubs? Chase - who's is off to Hull seemingly and...?
Or make a rep team from the squads of that bottom 4 and another from players at the top 4 with squad numbers >17.
It is in its way admirable that Leeds players have put success before money, but credit too to somebody like Kevin Brown for taking on a different challenge. It's tough at the top, but a damn sight tougher at the bottom.

Of course the "top" players are going to go to the "top" clubs, but it stops the top teams from having a bigger squad of "better" players. No ones suggesting that it's totally evenly spread, it's better than it would be without a cap.

1. Patten
2. Broughton
3. Moon
4. Webster
5. Robertson
6. Gower
7. Dobson
8. Taylor
9. Aiton
10. Kaufusi
11. Lauitiiti
12. Galea
13. Kirmond

14. Chase
15. Amor
16. Huby
17. Nero

Not too bad a team, all from clubs in the bottom 6 teams. If there were no salary cap the vast majority of those players would be at the "top" clubs. I know Broughton and Lauitiiti would still be at Leeds if it werent for the salary cap.

The salary cap is 'live'. Its monitored by the RFL monthly. Why do you think no one has breached it for the last few seasons?

They didn't seem to monitor it until it went wrong at [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/28/blackpool-panthers-docked-10-pointsBlackpool[/url or
until a player went public at [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/15212305Barrow[/url
Both in 'the last few seasons'

That's true, but building a successful side is one thing, building a successful SPORT - one that can attract sponsors and more fans at home and abroad, is another. I guess I'm not a purist, but to make the sport successful, you end up 'overpaying' relative to someone's talent on the field. Because what you're really paying for (if you're smart/lucky enough to make the right business call) is the number of replica shirts you might shift, or the new sponsor who'll take an interest, or the newspapers that put your club (and RL) in the limelight for a few weeks, and maybe more. Gavin Henson, for example, would be that kind of player.

Look at soccer. Are *any* of the players at the top clubs technically 'worth' their wages in terms of playing ability? No, that would be impossible. But, rightly or wrongly, some clubs see those players as 'investments'.