Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:09 pm  

Starbug wrote:

No it isn't its bollox

Do you fancy Leigh's chances of winning the GF on October the whatever and then building a squad capable of remaining in SL the following year?

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:14 pm  

Chris B wrote:

Do you fancy Leigh's chances of winning the GF on October the whatever and then building a squad capable of remaining in SL the following year?

I'd take it , if we fail we come back down , then try again , its what sport is about

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm  

Chris B wrote:

Do you fancy Leigh's chances of winning the GF on October the whatever and then building a squad capable of remaining in SL the following year?

If the date when players could talk to other clubs was put back to match, it wouldn't be a problem

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:20 pm  

Starbug wrote:

I'd take it , if we fail we come back down , then try again , its what sport is about

Of course you're assuming that you would have a chairman and a board in place that would be sensible about matters and not spend considerable sums on players to try and make you competitive, figures that would put a considerable strain on club finances should you drop the year after. But then in doing so you would be unlikely to survive.

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:21 pm  

pinballwizzard wrote:

If the date when players could talk to other clubs was put back to match, it wouldn't be a problem

Only if the club going up knew at that same time that they would be the ones going up. You can't sign players for SL until you know you're in?

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:57 pm  

What SL should have been considering is reducing the Salary Cap to around £1.2m (30 players average salary would be £40,000). Then this would mean that clubs can use the Sky money on players, then their own revenue streams for Tax, other employees and then investment into infrastructure.

This creating a much more competitive league as not all the best players would go to the top 5 or 6 teams and allowing the lesser supported teams a chance to compete on the field as well as off.

This would also allow teams coming up and down through relegation the chance to improve their facilities, youth development and experience even if they bounced between the divisions for a few seasons.

If you went into Administration you would have no excuses as you would have been running your business badly and then faced relegation. If more then one team goes into administration then they should all face the prospect of relegation and be replaced. Harsh but fair in a lower salary cap system.

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:05 pm  

No need for sympathy towards the Crusaders fans.They must have known what they were getting when the circus came to town from south wales in 2010.Surely they can't have expected it to last.They'll get over it.Here today gone tomorrow.

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:08 pm  

The problem is that if you reduce the salary cap you do run the risk of reducing the quality of the league. I think this has been noticeable in this division.

You also run the risk of losing your better players to the NRL or Union.

The answer is to increase the salary cap but to somehow increase the funding to the lower leagues also.

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:19 pm  

Chris B wrote:

The problem is that if you reduce the salary cap you do run the risk of reducing the quality of the league. I think this has been noticeable in this division.

You also run the risk of losing your better players to the NRL or Union.

The answer is to increase the salary cap but to somehow increase the funding to the lower leagues also.

Not at all. The current Salary cap is £1.65m of which roughly £1.2m comes from Sky TV money (Sky Deal 3 years at £50, £1.19m). So the clubs still had to find the extra £450,000 to spend on the salary cap. Plus all other expenses regarding the running of the clubs.

The revenue streams available to rugby are limited in regards to bigger and more popular sports. You have to be realistic and grow the brand before you grow the cap. Once you have found ways to increase the revenue streams then you can talk about increasing the caps.

By reducing the cap you are allowing other teams to have a chance rather then the better teams hogging them. Thus allowing for a more competitive league and then giving the teams a better chance to use the money to develop through a youth system. Instead of allowing Leeds, Saints, Wigan et al to just round up as many younsters as they want for their youth systems. Thus stopping other teams actually developing.

The closer the whole division is a better specticle it becomes and a better chance of increasing those revenue streams.

There will always be a gulf between a top division and it's next level because the better players play in the top division. That's life. You need to level the field in the top division so that as teams progress they stand a better chance of survival. A newly promoted team is not going to instantly have high enough revenue streams to support a higher cap that you wish. Where will this money come from?

Re: CRUSADERS : Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:23 pm  

Sounds like they actually only withdrew their bid this morning or yesterday at the very latest. Firefighting decision by the RFL by the looks of it.