Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:23 pm  

Ben Barba would have been a far better and cheaper option, on the rugby field anyway. Paying for the name/brand, and hoping that he will perform to the level expected.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:10 pm  

So Noble now wants to change the salary cap.

And so it begins, as I predicted. The SBW wage will now push up other wage demands as the prescedent has now been set; squeezing cash strapped clubs even more.

If it drives up turnstiles and increases revenue then it may be worthwhile, but there is little historical evidence to support this.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:53 pm  

Gallanteer wrote:

So Noble now wants to change the salary cap.

And so it begins, as I predicted. The SBW wage will now push up other wage demands as the prescedent has now been set; squeezing cash strapped clubs even more.

If it drives up turnstiles and increases revenue then it may be worthwhile, but there is little historical evidence to support this.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The cap is too low. I dont see how anyone can dispute that. In a world where Super League is competing against the NRL and Rugby Union £2.1 mil is not enough. NRL is £5 mil, while English Rugby Union its £7 mil.

Realistically how can the game in Europe progress when it cap is so much lower?

I think there needs to be a real discussion on the future of the cap and whether the game would be better if owners who had the money could spend what they want on players? You could bring in rules which said debt wouldnt be allowed to be placed on the club to finance such signings and money spent over a certain amount had to be ring-fenced and not be done via bank loans put against the club.

The quality of player playing in Super League is decreasing. The standard the paying public watch is getting worse and and as long as the salary cap stays so low the quality will not get any better.

One could argue would it drive up revenue and put more bums on seats but whats the alternative? Right now we have empty grounds regularly, a product which is has decreased in standard and the sport is not growing. Do we just stay as it is and hope things magically improve?

The cap organically is never going to grow substantially as the TV deal isn't going to get much bigger (could get worse), commercial sponsorship isn't going to get much bigger so the cap will never get big enough for SL to realistically compete with the NRL and Rugby Union.


Lets look at an example of say Latrell Mitchell. Roosters take an offer of $800,000 off the table so 2021 his possibly up for grabs but the idea of him playing in SL is nothing but a fantasy. The NRL has plenty of quality players year in year out trading between clubs but none of our clubs are in the picture and one needs to ask is that right?

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:27 pm  

puroresu_boy wrote:

The cap is too low. I dont see how anyone can dispute that. In a world where Super League is competing against the NRL and Rugby Union £2.1 mil is not enough. NRL is £5 mil, while English Rugby Union its £7 mil.

Realistically how can the game in Europe progress when it cap is so much lower?

I think there needs to be a real discussion on the future of the cap and whether the game would be better if owners who had the money could spend what they want on players? You could bring in rules which said debt wouldnt be allowed to be placed on the club to finance such signings and money spent over a certain amount had to be ring-fenced and not be done via bank loans put against the club.

The quality of player playing in Super League is decreasing. The standard the paying public watch is getting worse and and as long as the salary cap stays so low the quality will not get any better.

One could argue would it drive up revenue and put more bums on seats but whats the alternative? Right now we have empty grounds regularly, a product which is has decreased in standard and the sport is not growing. Do we just stay as it is and hope things magically improve?

The cap organically is never going to grow substantially as the TV deal isn't going to get much bigger (could get worse), commercial sponsorship isn't going to get much bigger so the cap will never get big enough for SL to realistically compete with the NRL and Rugby Union.


Lets look at an example of say Latrell Mitchell. Roosters take an offer of $800,000 off the table so 2021 his possibly up for grabs but the idea of him playing in SL is nothing but a fantasy. The NRL has plenty of quality players year in year out trading between clubs but none of our clubs are in the picture and one needs to ask is that right?

All good points but, with the possible exception of Toulouse, just where do the other clubs get the extra cap spend from.
IIRC there were only 5 clubs spending full cap and not all of those were utilising both marque players.

The bottom line is that we are a poor third option behind the NRL and Union and even if the cap was removed completely, it would make little difference, apart from counting the time until the next "Bradford Bulls".

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:35 pm  

The cap is only too low if you're spending the max and not getting any success. When not even half of the premier competition is spending the current max cap, it makes raising it a none issue. When three-quarters of SL are at max spend then raising it would be worth considering, until then there's no point in harping-on about it.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:42 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

All good points but, with the possible exception of Toulouse, just where do the other clubs get the extra cap spend from.
IIRC there were only 5 clubs spending full cap and not all of those were utilising both marque players.

The bottom line is that we are a poor third option behind the NRL and Union and even if the cap was removed completely, it would make little difference, apart from counting the time until the next "Bradford Bulls".

Agree when all clubs are not even spending the full cap it shows something majorly wrong but we do have clubs who could afford to spend more than £2.1 mil.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:31 pm  

Should increase slightly but introduce ways to keep best club talent. Maybe make players that have come through the system exempt from the cap.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:58 pm  

I would be all for a staged increase in Salary Cap at say roughly 10% increase per year over 5 years, this would give Clubs a target & time to plan, upsell their product to supporters & commercial partners.

If SL were nearer to NRL it might just give SL Clubs a slight chance of retaining some players lost to NRL or a chance to bring one or two back.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:45 pm  

Steph Curry wrote:

I agree. Injuries meant he only had 2 caps in what 6 years due to injuries when normally he would have been the first name on the team sheet.

To be honest, I can't think of a 'top name' RU player who'd boost Toronto and Super League.

Someone did mention Ben Te'o, who has played RL before. However, he's not exactly a household name and he's gone to a big French club with lots of cash.

Re: Sbw to Toronto : Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:13 pm  

Ste100Centurions wrote:

I would be all for a staged increase in Salary Cap at say roughly 10% increase per year over 5 years, this would give Clubs a target & time to plan, upsell their product to supporters & commercial partners.

If SL were nearer to NRL it might just give SL Clubs a slight chance of retaining some players lost to NRL or a chance to bring one or two back.

I’d do something similar whereby I’d increase the cap steadily in a similar manner but also implement a 50% of revenue cap too.

I think linking the cap to revenue is a good way to incentivise clubs to increase their revenue and then at least half of that extra revenue has to get spent on areas other than player wages. So it also should increase club spending on marketing, facilities, club infrastructure etc.

I’d have the finite cap limit eventually eliminated so it would just be a straight 50% of income. But that would be done over 10+ years so you don’t get an immediate massive disparity between the richest and poorest clubs caps.