Still being able to afford to spend the same amount they can now.

are you of the belief that a dozen more Marwans will be attracted to the game if the cap is removed?

This thread has been Smokey'd

No.

I think the SC does ensure that there is some money that could come in to the game is left on the table as it were. But no I don't think that there are a dozen Koukash's waiting for it to go.

come on the game has stood still for over 15 years stop kidding yourself.

come on man

Perhaps we should look at loosening the salary cap but at the same time reducing the number of senior players. Having a smaller core of well paid senior squad members backed up by home grown players would spread the quality around whilst benefiting those who produce there own youngsters. It would also allow the quality to be paid according to their ability.

You think the game is the same standard as it was 15 years ago? The standard on the pitch is of a massively higher standard.
15 years ago The RFL was in debt following a disastrous World Cup.
15 years ago RFL revenue was roughly 1/3rd of what is now.
Crowds are roughly 25% higher today than they were 15 years ago.

Has it grown as much as I'd like, no. Has it grown, definitely but slowly and with plenty of setbacks along the way, some very much avoidable.

I'll ask you again, where do Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Huddersfield & Warrington find millions of pounds extra? And if they've got it available why aren't they currently spending it on other areas?

Quick point of order the SC hasn't been in place in its current format for 15 years despite hat being a convenient time frame for HIM.

It's also worth noting that in 2001 Wigan were spending £3.2m and the SC was £2.3m. Since then it has fallen to £1.7m. The SC now is nearly half what Wigan were spending 13 years ago I'm absolute terms. In real terms it is about a third of what Wigan were spending had the SC simply kept up with inflation.

But apparently the SC has been a catalyst for growth but clubs now cannot afford half of what the SC was 13 years ago. This despite even the RFL themselves publicly stating that clubs should spend more on player wages. Even the RFL believe it was 'time to cut the purse strings'

For some reason though those who financially benefit from a low cap a don't want to raise it. I cannot possibly think of a reason why a business owner would want to pay his workers less buy unbelievably they do.

You seem to think player salaries is the absolute measure of growth and nothing else matters. How does youth investment compare over the time frame? Business infrastructure? Training facilities? Sustainability?

As a saints fan I'd suggest Wigan are in a much stronger position now then they were 15 years ago. They spent 5-10 years sulking about the cap, and it almost got them relegated, they have since learnt that they can benefit in other areas and rose again (annoyingly

)

As for saints transformation over the time period, well, there is no comparison. If other owners can't or won't take those benefits presented to the two clubs mentioned, then why is letting them spend more of player salaries going to change anything, other than giving into the boom or bust mentality some seem to have?

ALao, the suggestion that McManus, who is one of the loudest advocates of the cap, is in it for financial gain is absolutely laughable when you look at the millions he's spent getting Saints to where they are today. You seem to think reasonable assement and feasibility are code words for underhand tactics, when no such evil plot exists.

I am an advocate of a small, controlled increase to the cap, and a feasible, open and timely growth model is produced for the cap. But it is important it remain feasible. We're still not in a situation where 12 can afford to spend the whole cap for christs sake!

Ps where's your proof that Wigan could afford to spend 3.2m in 2001 and they weren't grossly spending over what they could afford?

Well do we have fantastic facilities throughout the league? Are all our clubs sustainable? If our business infrastructure is so good now, why do we have less to spend?

Also, why is it the players job to subsidise these things through lower earnings? Aren't these things the responsibility of the owners?

our guesses at whether Wigan are in a better or worse position now aren't really worth the pixels they are written with. Certainly not in comparison to those whose money it is being spent.


If McManus wants to spend what he wants to spend on infrastructure and on the playing squad and he doesn't want to pay for both, it is up to him to choose the opportunity cost. It is morally reprehensible for him to collude with other owners to deprive players so he can. McManus is capable of reasonable assessment and feasibility on his own. If 1.7m is the right amount for him to spend then he is free to do so. It is wrong that he collude with others to deprive players because he doesn't want to spend more.

It is crazy to suggest that the RFL's own statements to the contrary the SC being lower than 2001 and falling in real terms for a more than a decade and clubs STILL playing the poor card is an argument in favour of the cap. It isn't. It pretty damning evidence of its complete and utter failure.

Their statements. Anyone else's speculation is worthless.

I agree. Let's scrap the cap and go back to the healthy state it win through most of the 90s, where one club through its spending power was able to pretty much rule the roost and everyone else was competing for second. What a glorious golden era that was.

I mean, it's not like it did any long term damage to that dominant club, after all.

Can anyone confirm if this is or is not now in the salary cap? I think I read it somewhere but cannot find where.

If so then Wigan can sign Sam Tomkins or Saints sign James Graham on say £1M a year if they can afford it.

Why that era and not the 70 ' when we were world champions? We largely didn't have a salary cap for the majority of our history so why is the pre salary cap era solely defined by a period of Wigan dominance that had been over 5 years before the advent of the SC

Also, and I'm yet to see anyone even attempt an answer to this. Why is it the players responsibility to do without to protect the owners of clubs from themselves?

They weren't brought in. For what I am sure are unfathomable reasons people who financially benefit from paying wages as low as possible did not vote for the possibility of higher wages.

We didn't have substitutes for most of our history. We didn't have the one-point drop goal or the four-point try for most of our history. It doesn't stop their introduction being a good idea. The need for a salary cap came about, IMO in part at least, because of what Wigan had done in spending money they didn't have to try and protect their dominance. Hence the relevance.

How are the players "doing without"? They have the same right to go seek alternative, better-paid employment elsewhere that any employee has. What are they being deprived of exactly? Who is forcing them with a gun to their head to stay in rugby league and "do without"?

The removal of the correlation between the salary cap and turnover was the end of it being about saving the clubs from themselves. It's about levelling the playing field, in the same way that salary caps in the NFL/NBA/A-League etc are. It stops Simon Moran, or Marwan Koukash, or Russell Crowe going out and spending twice as much as anyone else on players in an attempt to buy success. If you think that success in sport should be determined by how wealthy your owner is, until it all becomes a race to attract a sugar daddy in the way the Premier League has become, then good for you.

but that had already ended by the time the SC was brought in. 5 he SC didn't end Wigan dominance. It had already ended and been over for years.
I find it amazing the mental gymnastics some will do to argue that a salary cap, by definition a cap on salaries, when the very reason it exists solely to keep wages low, does not disadvantage players. It is unarguable that players wages are lower because of the SC. How are they being disadvantaged? Their wages are lower.


There are better playing field levellers than the SC. I have no problem with us levelling the playing field. I think it's a good thing. I think an SC is a godawful attempt at it.

I'm obviously not going to change your opinion on the matter, so I'm not going to try.

However, the home grown cap cap wasn't voted on by "the financially benefitting" as it was not voted on at all. The ongoing conversations and debate about the marquee signing rule simply pushed the cap cap out of the itinerary. I've not heard anything about it since about July.

Interestingly, according to the policy review at the end of last year the home grown cap cap was to come in and replace the elite training squad allowance. The elite training squad allowance wording was changed in the rules, stating it was applicable in the 2011 -2014 seasons only. So it might not be far away.

I've just gone onto the operational rules to find the exact wording and the entire salary cap section has been taken down ... Updates or less open approach?

I'm all for this. A set salary cap to stop the clubs putting themselves into the red, but if outside investors want to put in extra out of their own pocket, why not!? Why not allow the jobs for the wives at JJB sports and such? As long as such extra contracts are tied to the investor and not the club, then it'll stop the club getting into financial ruin.

The "creating an even playing field" notion of the cap just holds us back as a sport (losing players to RU) and a competition (losing players to and failing to attract players from the NRL).

How could Marwan paying for Sonny Bill Williams to play for Salford be bad for our sport?

To be honest I'd take it further. As long as the club can show they interviewed other people and appointed the family member in a fair and proper manner they should be able to do whatever job they want them to.

I'm not to worried about that, but say Marwan signs up Jonathan Thurston. Perhaps £25K a year rolling contract on Salford's books, but gets sponsored with a £400K contract by Dr.MarwanK. If the Doctor decides to stop funding players, or goes bust, or whatever, then the worst thing that happens to Salford is that they lose a player.

Who loses?

"we were going to give you a pay rise but when I was colluding with our competitors to make sure we didn't give you too much of a pay rise we decided to put a time limit on those discussions. Unfortunately we spent so long discussing then deciding not to offer one of you you're market worth, we didn't even get a chance to discuss giving some of you closer to your market worth in certain circumstances so sadly my hands are tied, I have to continue to pay you less than your market worth."

You would be happy at the end of that conversation with your boss wouldn't you? You would think that entirely reasonable wouldn't you?

Hmm that's convenient isn't it.

We could have allowed clubs to spend what they want but limit the structure of their squad as well as making sure they invested in things like youth development and their facilities and made their being a well run business a condition of their participation in the competition. Apparently jeopardy was the most important thing possible though so we scrapped that idea.

Quote ="SmokeyTA""we were going to give you a pay rise but when I was colluding with our competitors to make sure we didn't give you too much of a pay rise we decided to put a time limit on those discussions. Unfortunately we spent so long discussing then deciding not to offer one of you you're market worth, we didn't even get a chance to discuss giving some of you closer to your market worth in certain circumstances so sadly my hands are tied, I have to continue to pay you less than your market worth." You would be happy at the end of that conversation with your boss wouldn't you? You would think that entirely reasonable wouldn't you? Hmm that's convenient isn't it.'" when did the league clubs sit down with the nrl and union to fix prices? Oh, and who says that the vast majority of players in SL arent getting their market value? I think thats a fallacy in itself. You can look for yourself: www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 Im not sure what its convenient for but there you go...

Quote ="SmokeyTA""we were going to give you a pay rise but when I was colluding with our competitors to make sure we didn't give you too much of a pay rise we decided to put a time limit on those discussions. Unfortunately we spent so long discussing then deciding not to offer one of you you're market worth, we didn't even get a chance to discuss giving some of you closer to your market worth in certain circumstances so sadly my hands are tied, I have to continue to pay you less than your market worth." You would be happy at the end of that conversation with your boss wouldn't you? You would think that entirely reasonable wouldn't you? Hmm that's convenient isn't it.'" when did the league clubs sit down with the nrl and union to fix prices? Oh, and who says that the vast majority of players in SL arent getting their market value? I think thats a fallacy in itself. You can look for yourself: www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 Im not sure what its convenient for but there you go...