There's no real argument from me with the jist of this. But a key issue with Kyle Eastmond, for example, is not that Saints (or Warrington, or Wigan, or Leeds) can't afford to pay him a little bit extra to stay in the game. It's that they're not allowed to. I bet Eamon McManus wishes right now that he had just a little more leeway with which to negotiate for Eastmond.

It's too easy to say the Salary Cap must remain because there aren't the resources generally to raise it. That doesn't take into account the top tier of clubs, who probably could afford a little bit extra to try to entice their stars to stay (and at the end of the day, we need some stars - we can't keep churning them out for the benefit of Rugby Union). I'm not talking about IL's semi-mythical £500K or whatever he was supposed to have said. If players are asking that kind of silly money, they can indeed sod off. But most of them, I suspect, aren't.

That's too simplistic a view. If the cap was raised, it wouldn't be set aside to give to the likes of Kyle Eastmond. It would be spent across existing players in existing squads as agents queued up for a slice of the bigger pie.

There's nothing wrong with that, but the likelihood is that even if the cap was £150k higher, it would still have been spent (across the squad or on another player) and Saints still wouldn't have enough cap to re-sign Kyle. And the clubs would be sailing £150k closer to the wind.

It may also be that it doesn't matter how big the cap was, Kyle would want to play in the bigger sport (let's not be naive here) of Union.

Where are the clubs going to generate this extra revenue from ?

Wigan situation has been nothing short of a miracle off the back of some very hard work by IL to put in place good management team to turn around the club but when you look at other clubs who seem just to be doing enough to exist what can they do or have done to them say by the RFL to sanction them if they fall short of there own business plan in respect to revenue generated.

The only way to generate more revenue was to take the game out of the heartlands into untapped sources , but as it stands Both London and Wales have had nothing but problems financially and also the roots are not stable financially and Wakefield going under is a prime example of this.

So where do we turn now to generate the extra revenue?

On Eastmond has he said he wants to leave Saints or is this posturing by his agent ?

To be honest Kyle has been injured for considerable amounts of the season and has a lot to prove, so his negotiating stand point is somewhat weak also does he not have any faith in what Saints are doing unlike Sam Tomkins who does not want to go anywhere else because of the set up at Wigan ?

Even though from childhood he was a keen RL fan, and signed for an RL club as his first choice?

My view may be a tad simplistic, but that view is more than a tad defeatist and is trotted out far too often as if there's no alternative argument.

In the days when we paid more money than Union, the flow of players came our way. The 'much bigger 15-a-side game' didn't seem quite so attractive then. Let's not totally kid ourselves into believing that the future, all round, is much rosier in Rugby Union. Money is the main thing.

There is an alternative argument - it's along the lines of set the cap as high as the game can afford; if it reaches a level where it competes with union that's great. But let's not spend cash before we've generated it, as we've been there before and it isn't pretty.

Even when players came across from union to league, union was a far bigger sport; it was just shamateur. Yes a few players crossed over, but lots didn't and those who didn't played in front of huge crowds in the international arena that league can only dream of.

The fact that we were only just competing with a sport that was (on the face of it) amateur says it all about the respective footings, as has been borne out since RU went pro.

I'm not being defeatist, I think RL has a huge amount to offer and a lot of room for growth. I also think we're in the best position to grow the sport for some time, with the RFL in profit and generating respectable revenues at last, plus a bigger Sky deal on the cards.

On the face of it? Rugby Union is one of the most well known sports to engage in shamiterism. Don't you remember Jonathan Davies in the Daily Mail describing the "brown envelopes" given out after games?

Rugby Union - bigger sport. I would agree at international level, and at a funding level. But in terms of numbers of people watching club level rugby via TV and Live I would be interested to see your viewing numbers to back up this statement. Actually I would love to see some facts to backup many of the things you say in this thread.

Some of the posts on here are quite amusing, however, one of the biggest things that amuses me is the lack of posts by the "You only hate the CC as Wigan aren't winning anything" brigade ................. Funny that... If nothing else then at least we now should hear no more of these muppets posting their nonsense.

Wigan are the champions, yet others and I are still criticising the CC, just as we said we would.


FT posted in support of IL and what he has done for the club. That was a tad off topic, as this wasn't the question, however, there is no denying that things off the field seem to be on the up, and credit must go to IL for at least some of that.

The real key here is that IL (and other chairmen) are about as likely to vote for an increase in the CC (at least in the short term) as turkeys are to vote for Xmas.

Why on earth would he seek to increase his financial outgoings? Now in the medium to long term he may realise that unless there is an increase in the CC then the value of his investment will fall. A drain of players away from RL (and worse still, talented young teenagers moving to RU as their first choice code), would reduce the quality on the pitch and the associated revenue streams that would go with this- Sky certainly won't hang around if the viewing figures take a hit even if some die hard fans will.

As DG says, the issue in RL is that the CC has ensured that players have taken a real terms pay cut over the years. One thing is certain- this certainly isn't going to act as an incentive for people to take up and stay in the game.

If there is to be any form of regulation in RL I would prefer it to be based on economic relevance rather than some misplaced political ideology. There is a case to say that a club should ensure that it's "core" expenditure (rent, utilities, fixed costs etc) would have to be met before it can pay it's players. Although this sounds complicated, and of course, would be open to interpretation (in much the same way as an audit of a companys accounts is), it could actually be a lot easier to implement than many would have you believe. In short it would ensure that clubs remain financially secure, but are not prevented from paying big money to attract and retain the star players that we all want to see.


Back on topic- would IL want this to happen? Of course not.

It's no different to the ultimately diametrically opposed positions of the owners of a company and it's customers.

Again today we can see that the salary cap is forcing the games top talent to move to rugby union to be properly rewarded for their talent.

How can RL survive when the likes of the talent that is Rikki Sheriffe is lost to the game.

All businesses need to keep their revenue rising at least in line with rising costs in the long term otherwise eventually they will go under.

The SC gives temporary immunity to RL clubs from the salary elements of this equation, but over a long period it will simply become uneconomic for the players to be full time pros and they will have to get jobs to get by (in reality many of them will go to RU, leave RL or not go into RL in the first place).

I think you are right to point out that those at the bottom have probably suffered far more than those at the top - simply because they have less disposable income to begin with before inflation erodes their salaries (I imagine the majority of people reading this thread will know what this has been like from their own experience of the last few years, with wage freezes or small rises and everything in the shops getting more expensive, heating bills and petrol getting dearer etc).

I do have sympathy though even with the higher earners - it's a short career and these are talented people. I'd like all pro-RL players to be on decent money and its fine by me if the stars make what to most people would be a very large amount of money.

I don't think its a sign of a healthy sport that RL can only afford to pay the same amount in absolute terms that it could pay 12 years ago. If it carries on then many players will be forced to become semi-pro before too long or will drift away from the game (or not even get involved in the first place - RU isn't the only danger).

I agree with everything else you wrote but this bit is worth highlighting.

The enthusiasm that pro cap posters (especially those who post on here who are Saints fans it seems to me ) have for driving players wages down is astonishing. And they do phrase defence of the cap in those terms and have done so for years. I have never understood it.

Let's get things straight here and remove some of this emotive language that's present.

Nobody is saying players shouldn't be paid more. What people are saying (and it's something I've said a million times before) is that the game should be in a position where it can afford it. I am not privvy to exactly how much money is in the game so can only assume that given Super League clubs are not making profits year after year after year that we're not as financially secure as we need to be. Any increase in the cap has to be considered alongside what the sport can afford. Note, I'm saying the sport and not all clubs because there will be clubs that can't keep up with the demands of running a professional sporting franchise in this competition.

What we must safeguard against (and this is something that people continue to ignore) is the danger of living beyond our means. There are numerous sporting examples of clubs which have ignored that ideology in favour of spending to succeed e.g. Portsmouth. Since 1992 some 56 clubs in the top four divisions of the football league have gone into administration. 56 and that's our national sport which is bigger than international rugby union, cricket and rugby league combined.

Let's not forget that some RL teams have found it difficult to stay afloat as well (need I remind you of your own clubs perilously close flirtation with financial disaster?). Increase the cap by all means but our sport must be able to afford it. We must act sensibly, professionally and with genuine care about game which is something that do better now than we have ever done previously.

I would love to know where you have seen this. I don't believe any poster on here would enthusiastically talk about driving players wages down which makes your post incredibly misleading about the nature of this discussion that's taking place. You should be on [iThe Daily Mail[/i with that one Dave.

It was probably where I said:



or:



or where you said:



Easy to translate into wanting wages driven down, we should have been clearer.

Or were there other Saints fans on the thread he was referring to?

We are still in the position of the SC in place and clubs going broke.
10-12 years after the cap was introduced and we haven't put in place a system or rule to prevent clubs from their own financial mismanagement. We surely can't go on like this?

The costs cap I mentioned could be set at 95-99% of turnover. This would give clubs flexibility on what they spend on all aspects of their business especially players wages, yet they would have a slight profit or at least break even. It is better, IMO, than the SC in that a club could spend what it liked on what it's priority was and still remain in business.

Clubs will be able to up their players wages and other costs as revenue rises. New income sources will soon arrive for quite a few clubs. Salford and Saints will get new grounds. HKR are modernising theirs and increasing capacity, same for Catalans. Cas are in with a shout for a new stad and that could transform their finances. Bradford have their season ticket sales pledge which will help them. So many clubs will enjoy inccreases in revenue over the next few years.

In the end though if Union come in with £200k for a massive talent like Eastmond no RL club can or will be able to afford that. These are headline figures and no one knows what is really on offer.
It will never happen but I'd liked to have seen Chris Ashton's P60 after his first full tax year in Union and see how near his actual earning were compared to the £140k quoted everywhere.

Eastmond may go and he will be a massive loss. However, what dismayed me a few weeks ago was the feeling that Wakefield Trinity may have disappeared forever due to financial mismanagement.
That for me would have been the bigger loss for Rugby League.
I do feel that clubs should be held to a far greater financial scrutiniy than they are at present and that controlling total costs should be the priority not just concentrating on the salaries of the highest paid 25 players as under the Salary Cap.

Well I can't point to any links as I am not one to bookmark stuff but I certainly did not imagine it. Posts would tend to be phrased along the lines of "We must have managed to get <insert name of player> for £20K a year so isn't that great" with complete disregard for that means for the players livelihood as a pro sportsman.

I am also sure I didn't imagine slightly more links between the cap and players having to accept less money with this being a good thing in itself. It's not entirely surprising if a cap on wages allows a less well off club to pay less for a top player the fans see this as a good end in itself as opposed to looking at it as you say you do in a previous post where you say it's the amount of money in the game that is the issue.

If that is the issue then there should be no need for cap at all. If IL says he can't pay out an extra £500K more than Wigan do now then I assume he would not pay it if there was a cap in place or not.

I think you'll find that most of the posts on this thread calling for change to the SC are from people who have also called for financial controls to be brought in to prevent clubs overspending.

There is far too much confusion of the two issues from people in favour of the SC in its current form.

It is not an either/or choice - reform the SC or ensure clubs are financially stable (even growing!). We can and must do both. The attempts of pro-SC people to muddy the waters by suggesting that the cap can't be raised because clubs would go bust are just ridiculous. Financial controls should be brought in as soon as possible, they are urgently needed. Any rise to the SC would be small and need to be phased in given the current desperate state of many clubs, but in any event the financial controls would prevent overspending - if the club couldn't afford the maximum SC it couldn't spend the maximum.

The SC is only part of a bigger problem which is the lack of proper management, financial discipline and business planning at RL clubs.

I would love for the sport to be able to raise the salary cap however it is patently clear that at present this is not feasible as the money isn't there.

It is somewhat ironic that those who adamantly support a raise in the salary cap also generally say that stricter controls should be imposed to stop clubs spending money they don't have. So in effect they actually are proposing a real-term drop in salary cap for probably 12 out of 14 Super League teams in any given season.

Nobody has yet said where the additional salary expenditure can be sustainably produced by the sport.

The best bet for me is to hold tight for the next couple of years and hopefully when the country/world moves out of the "recession" the sport is in a healthy state ready to move forward and hopefully increase revenue to see players rewarded at a level appropriate to the talent they have. Then the cap can be re-appraised.

Whilst I can't comment on the feasibility of the money being present I agree with your post completely. We can't spend what we haven't got and looking at the sport currently it doesn't appear to be awash with money.

It is not ironic. Raising the salary cap would provide an incentive for clubs to bring in more revenue so that they could spend more on players. Ensuring that all clubs maintain financial stability is a good thing, regardless of whether they are spending the full cap or not.

Not sure I follow the second sentence of the second paragraph. Are you suggesting that the cap is too high at present and that 12 clubs are spending money they don't have? If this is true then things are even worse than I thought.



Bigger crowds, more merchandising sales and more sponsorship monies for starters? It's not rocket science – though I accept it will be difficult in the current environment to get a massive increase in revenue, particularly given the failure of clubs to grow revenue in the healthy economic climate of the late 90s through to 2008 - but when clubs have no real incentive to increase their revenue then we can't expect them to do so, they’ll just stagnate (or decline).



This bit I do have some sympathy with, which is why I said earlier in the thread that the RFL should announce a small rise to come in from 2013. I would want the RFL to keep the situation under review.

Sooner or later the cap has to go up though. If it doesn't then inflation will erode player wages to the point where the level of pay simply won't support a fully professional league.

You'd have a point if everyone was spending the full cap.

That incentive is already there for clubs not spending full cap. Raising the cap wouldn't provide any more incentive, in fact it is more likely to do the opposite.

So making profit isn't an incentive in the first place then? That doesn't make sense. You make it sound like Saints or Wigan aren't interested in making as much money as possible and given some of Saints merchandising prices I know that to not be the case. Clubs want to make as much money as possible. Changing the salary cap total isn't going to change that ethos because it's the fundamental reason for a business existing.

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been said, but isn't the answer obvious? Why are we even arguing about whether the SC should be raised when all that has to be done to retain the top eschelon of talent is to remove sponsorship from the cap! No extra cost to the clubs and also makes use of the fact that the best (and therefore highest profile) players are the ones who would attract the most lucrative sponsorships. Keep the SC for club paid wages, adopt the universally accepted best practice of favouring Academy nurtured players and simply allow whatever sponsorships individual players can attract. Simple really...

But the incentive isn't there. The cap in real terms is 30% lower than it was when it was brought in.

Anyway, how could raising the cap provide [iless [/iof an incentive?

I'm afraid in your attempts to defend the indefensible you are not making much sense.



I don't think any club owner of any RL club would ever buy into a RL club because it was a profitable investment. Even in football, which is awash with money there aren't many examples of club owners actually making a profit (Martin Edwards at Man U is probably the only good example I can think of). RL clubs are trophies for business people to play with not businesses, that's part of the problem.

But in any case, your argument doesn't work, because if profit making were enough of an incentive then clubs would have grown their revenue and we wouldn't be having this debate! They haven't done so, that is clear (the anti-reform people posting on this and other threads constantly remind us that most clubs can't afford to spend any more at present).

What we need is a declaration of intent from the RFL to raise the cap and for clubs to start to behave a little bit more commercially (and for the RFL to regulate them properly).

It's not going to happen overnight and we can only expect a small rise in the SC in the next 5 years but we must change things.

And most teams still aren't spending full cap, therefore the incentive of a cap higher than you can pay doesn't seem to be working does it?

Nice try Phuzzy but there's not enough envy or bitterness in your proposal and too much common sense. Even though the cap is failing to prevent clubs going under it is essential that it is retained for its prime purpose of holding back the cream so that the rest don't have to try too hard.