Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:23 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I actually wrote "If they can all afford one, which I am sure would be the case..."

So there is no contradiction.

As I said earlier in the post this year clubs will have to be finding money themselves to pay players as the Sky money does not cover the cap and I can't believe we have a SL outfit who will be in SL next season (i.e. not Bradford or London!) who are not putting their own money toward the players wage bill. If they are doing that then as next season they get all the wages paid by the Sky money, they should have a surplus they could use toward the marquee player.

You actually made quite an invalid presumption so you were indeed contradicting yourself, but I'm not going to get into an argument about that now.

And I'm sure that you are aware that the outgoing costs for Super League clubs - not least through tax - will mean that many clubs certainly won't have this elusive endless pot of money which you talk about. In addition to this, if there was indeed a surplus of money as you suggest it would most probably not be of such a substantial amount that it would be able to pay the wages of one of the "marquee" players in the world of Rugby League.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:25 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote: Two things: a) The salary cap being brought in to stop clubs going bust is a myth - admittedly a myth purported by the rfl when they first brought in the cap, but a myth none the less. It came about because the rfl were too ignorant/ lacked the intelligence to notice anything beyond mass over spending on players. What bringing in the cap has done is exposed the true problem within the sport of rank mismanagement on every level. In short, clubs never were going bust because of overspending on players, but the terrible businesses behind that. I don't disagree with the wider issues you mention but whether it was ignorance or just stupidity on the rfl's part to think stopping overspending on players was a panacea to the financial issues faced by the clubs it was certainly not a myth as it was a stated purpose of the cap to stop clubs going bust. Nerd that I am I kept a copy of the 2008 regulations on my PC and here is a snippet from section E1, Super League Salary Cap regulations: Super League Salary Cap Regulations 1. Purpose, Scope and Application 1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements; I just checked and it is still in there: http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1 You can't call it a myth when it is in the regulations. It doesn't work and doesn't preventing Clubs trading beyond their means which I think we agree on but its pretty clear it was one of its intended purposes. As the evidence shows it has been a dismal failure in this regard. b) I agree entirely marquees dont need to be from overseas - and in fact I'm all for regulation to be brought in to stop us losing our top talent (retain what you can before you go raiding and all that) - but that could all be achieved by the home grown cap cap of limiting home grown players salarys to 100k - something that was proposed by the rfl and swept under the rug by certain chairmen because it didnt suit their agenda. I am not sure what you mean by limiting homegrown players salaries to £100K. How does that prevent them wanting to leave or fit in with the idea of a marquee signing (homegrown or not)?

Magic Superbeetle wrote: Two things: a) The salary cap being brought in to stop clubs going bust is a myth - admittedly a myth purported by the rfl when they first brought in the cap, but a myth none the less. It came about because the rfl were too ignorant/ lacked the intelligence to notice anything beyond mass over spending on players. What bringing in the cap has done is exposed the true problem within the sport of rank mismanagement on every level. In short, clubs never were going bust because of overspending on players, but the terrible businesses behind that. I don't disagree with the wider issues you mention but whether it was ignorance or just stupidity on the rfl's part to think stopping overspending on players was a panacea to the financial issues faced by the clubs it was certainly not a myth as it was a stated purpose of the cap to stop clubs going bust. Nerd that I am I kept a copy of the 2008 regulations on my PC and here is a snippet from section E1, Super League Salary Cap regulations: Super League Salary Cap Regulations 1. Purpose, Scope and Application 1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements; I just checked and it is still in there: http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1 You can't call it a myth when it is in the regulations. It doesn't work and doesn't preventing Clubs trading beyond their means which I think we agree on but its pretty clear it was one of its intended purposes. As the evidence shows it has been a dismal failure in this regard. b) I agree entirely marquees dont need to be from overseas - and in fact I'm all for regulation to be brought in to stop us losing our top talent (retain what you can before you go raiding and all that) - but that could all be achieved by the home grown cap cap of limiting home grown players salarys to 100k - something that was proposed by the rfl and swept under the rug by certain chairmen because it didnt suit their agenda. I am not sure what you mean by limiting homegrown players salaries to £100K. How does that prevent them wanting to leave or fit in with the idea of a marquee signing (homegrown or not)?

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:33 pm  

Pacific wrote:

You actually made quite an invalid presumption so you were indeed contradicting yourself, but I'm not going to get into an argument about that now.

You might think my presumption was wrong that clubs having all their wage bill met in 2015 means they should have money for a marquee player but that is not a contradiction on my part.

And I'm sure that you are aware that the outgoing costs for Super League clubs - not least through tax - will mean that many clubs certainly won't have this elusive endless pot of money which you talk about. In addition to this, if there was indeed a surplus of money as you suggest it would most probably not be of such a substantial amount that it would be able to pay the wages of one of the "marquee" players in the world of Rugby League.

Who said anything about an endless pot of money? And as to tax to pay any the club would have to be in profit. In 2010 Bradford made a loss of £300K while paying to the full £1.65m salary cap. They got £1.2m of Sky money so had to find £450K. As they were £300K in the red clearly they only managed to raise £150K toward that amount.

Had their entire wage bill been met instead of a £300K loss they would have had a £150K surplus which with a marquee player rule they could have handed over to their star player. It might not be the kind of cash Koukash wants to hand out to a marquee player but is IMO the kind of money they might help them keep hold of a player like Bateman.

This shows even a basket case like Bradford should have an extra wedge of cash once their entire wage bill it met. If they and any other clubs have not and can't generate even a modest income from gate receipts and other commercial activities that would allow them to partake in the marquee player idea even to such a relatively small degree as in the above example it's time to give up. Players wages are THE biggest expense for all the clubs and it is effectively wiped out next season. The idea the 12 SL clubs left won't therefore be in a position to fund a marquee player at least to some degree doesn't really stack up.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:28 am  

DaveO wrote:

You might think my presumption was wrong that clubs having all their wage bill met in 2015 means they should have money for a marquee player but that is not a contradiction on my part.

Who said anything about an endless pot of money? And as to tax to pay any the club would have to be in profit. In 2010 Bradford made a loss of £300K while paying to the full £1.65m salary cap. They got £1.2m of Sky money so had to find £450K. As they were £300K in the red clearly they only managed to raise £150K toward that amount.

Had their entire wage bill been met instead of a £300K loss they would have had a £150K surplus which with a marquee player rule they could have handed over to their star player. It might not be the kind of cash Koukash wants to hand out to a marquee player but is IMO the kind of money they might help them keep hold of a player like Bateman.

This shows even a basket case like Bradford should have an extra wedge of cash once their entire wage bill it met. If they and any other clubs have not and can't generate even a modest income from gate receipts and other commercial activities that would allow them to partake in the marquee player idea even to such a relatively small degree as in the above example it's time to give up. Players wages are THE biggest expense for all the clubs and it is effectively wiped out next season. The idea the 12 SL clubs left won't therefore be in a position to fund a marquee player at least to some degree doesn't really stack up.

You've picked a pretty far flung example there to be honest and the case of Bradford certainly isnt representative of every team in Super League. To further on from this, your example is far too hypothetical to be credible as a blueprint for any monumental change in our sport which the abolition of the salary cap would so bring.

All in all im still convinced that the current salary cap legislation, although by no means perfect, is starting to show its worth.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:25 am  

Pacific wrote:

All in all im still convinced that the current salary cap legislation, although by no means perfect, is starting to show its worth.

I'd love to know what you class as worth?

We are currently seeing the worst standard of RL in living memory. The league is devoid of any true class. In days gone by we'd be watching top GB talents like Long, Scully, Faz, Rads now thier modern day equivalents are in the NRL.

We currently find ourselves in a situation where distinctly average player like Brough plays for a top side and wins the MOS. After that we've endure the likes of Hudds and Cas claiming to get better when in reality everyone is getting worse. Would those two squads have done anything 10 years ago when we had quality Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Bradford sides?

[Pemps]

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:33 am  

sergeant pepper wrote:

I'd love to know what you class as worth?

We are currently seeing the worst standard of RL in living memory. The league is devoid of any true class. In days gone by we'd be watching top GB talents like Long, Scully, Faz, Rads now thier modern day equivalents are in the NRL.

We currently find ourselves in a situation where distinctly average player like Brough plays for a top side and wins the MOS. After that we've endure the likes of Hudds and Cas claiming to get better when in reality everyone is getting worse. Would those two squads have done anything 10 years ago when we had quality Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Bradford sides?

Or in Union.

Unfortunately we'll never know how players like George Ford, Joe Ford, Stephen Myler and Owen Farrell would have worked out in league nor how Eastmond and Ashton would have developed with a few more years under their belt. Most of them are internationals in Union now. There's probably a few more who got snapped up at a similar age to Ford and farrell too.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:16 am  

DaveO wrote: I don't disagree with the wider issues you mention but whether it was ignorance or just stupidity on the rfl's part to think stopping overspending on players was a panacea to the financial issues faced by the clubs it was certainly not a myth as it was a stated purpose of the cap to stop clubs going bust. Nerd that I am I kept a copy of the 2008 regulations on my PC and here is a snippet from section E1, Super League Salary Cap regulations: Super League Salary Cap Regulations 1. Purpose, Scope and Application 1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements; I just checked and it is still in there: http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1 You can't call it a myth when it is in the regulations. It doesn't work and doesn't preventing Clubs trading beyond their means which I think we agree on but its pretty clear it was one of its intended purposes. As the evidence shows it has been a dismal failure in this regard. I am not sure what you mean by limiting homegrown players salaries to £100K. How does that prevent them wanting to leave or fit in with the idea of a marquee signing (homegrown or not)? By limiting home grown salarys cap value to a nominal 100k - if you pay a homegrown player over 100k, it doesnt matter if your paying them 101k or 500k, they still only count as 100k on the cap - Sam Tomkins or James Grahams earning potential becomes unlimited at their hometown clubs without severely hindering their clubs salary cap. Keep a marquee without hindering yourself, keeps the best british talent in the british game - all the goals of the marquee exemption, just limited to homegrown players. Maybe myth was the wrong word to use, because as you say, the rfl themselves started it, but if they believed limiting overspending was going to be the ailment to all woes then really them and bradford deserve each other! Also, even in the quoted section it doesnt expressly say to stop them going bust (though highly hinted at) and you could argue it is making (most) clubs more sustainable.

DaveO wrote: I don't disagree with the wider issues you mention but whether it was ignorance or just stupidity on the rfl's part to think stopping overspending on players was a panacea to the financial issues faced by the clubs it was certainly not a myth as it was a stated purpose of the cap to stop clubs going bust. Nerd that I am I kept a copy of the 2008 regulations on my PC and here is a snippet from section E1, Super League Salary Cap regulations: Super League Salary Cap Regulations 1. Purpose, Scope and Application 1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements; I just checked and it is still in there: http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1 You can't call it a myth when it is in the regulations. It doesn't work and doesn't preventing Clubs trading beyond their means which I think we agree on but its pretty clear it was one of its intended purposes. As the evidence shows it has been a dismal failure in this regard. I am not sure what you mean by limiting homegrown players salaries to £100K. How does that prevent them wanting to leave or fit in with the idea of a marquee signing (homegrown or not)? By limiting home grown salarys cap value to a nominal 100k - if you pay a homegrown player over 100k, it doesnt matter if your paying them 101k or 500k, they still only count as 100k on the cap - Sam Tomkins or James Grahams earning potential becomes unlimited at their hometown clubs without severely hindering their clubs salary cap. Keep a marquee without hindering yourself, keeps the best british talent in the british game - all the goals of the marquee exemption, just limited to homegrown players. Maybe myth was the wrong word to use, because as you say, the rfl themselves started it, but if they believed limiting overspending was going to be the ailment to all woes then really them and bradford deserve each other! Also, even in the quoted section it doesnt expressly say to stop them going bust (though highly hinted at) and you could argue it is making (most) clubs more sustainable.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:50 am  

DaveO wrote:

Players wages are THE biggest expense for all the clubs...

I think you're being a bit selective here. The biggest single expense, sure, but remember the original salary cap idea (and one which IMO should be reintroduced) was based on 50% of income, implying that only half of the SKY money (plus half of all the other revenue streams, of course) should go to players' wages, ie £900k, not £1.8m. The smaller clubs in particular don't provide anywhere near that income from other sources to make up the shortfall.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:51 am  

sergeant pepper wrote:

I'd love to know what you class as worth?

We are currently seeing the worst standard of RL in living memory. The league is devoid of any true class. In days gone by we'd be watching top GB talents like Long, Scully, Faz, Rads now thier modern day equivalents are in the NRL.

We currently find ourselves in a situation where distinctly average player like Brough plays for a top side and wins the MOS. After that we've endure the likes of Hudds and Cas claiming to get better when in reality everyone is getting worse. Would those two squads have done anything 10 years ago when we had quality Wigan, Leeds, Saints and Bradford sides?

I suspect this guy is a Wakey fan. So from his perspective he probably feels the salary cap is great in bringing the top teams in SL down to Wakeys level.

Re: Rumours and signings v9 : Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:09 am  

EastStandFaithful wrote:

I suspect this guy is a Wakey fan. So from his perspective he probably feels the salary cap is great in bringing the top teams in SL down to Wakeys level.

I will never forget , when the salary cap came in Stevo saying "we have to find a way to stop this lot!".. Wigan.