Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 9:47 pm  

post wrote:

Would those premier league teams like Man Cty, Chelsea and Liverpool be where they are if they had a salary cap below the Spanish and Italian leagues?

No, because Shiekh Mansour, Abramovic and John Henry/Fenway would have gone elsewhere.

Now we will never reach those heights, but at the very least we can be better. We should as a sport be aiming to be better than club level Union, county cricket and Championship football but in the last 10 years we have fallen behind all three which are achievable.

The salary cap is a nice little comfort blanket to hide behind for the clubs with no vision or ideas or ambition.

That's a fair point. A lot of sports that implement salary caps are those who have no significant rivals for their talent, such as the major sports like American Football, Basketball and Ice Hockey in the US. However, with only two professional leagues in our sport there's a limit to how much they can actually affect the strength of our game. The depth of talent in Australia doesn't come from pinching players from the UK. The lack of talent over here doesn't come from not being able to import players from overseas, it comes from poor structure from grassroots up to Super League and a lack of exposure for the game.

Expecting the game to improve simply by removing the salary cap is ignoring all the other issues that hold the game back. Long term it would be great to abolish the salary cap, or at least massively increase it, but getting rid of it doesn't automatically make it viable for clubs to spend huge amounts of money. The money to buy better players has to come from somewhere. The best place for that money to come from is a guaranteed source of income (at least for a set period of time) such as money from TV deals. If you start relying on rich owners chucking big money in you end up with a situation where clubs are spending pretty much all of their income, or possibly more, on player wages, a situation that isn't sustainable and can lead to pretty dire consequences, especially when wages become inflated. That's the situation that is currently blighting the Championship and lower league in football.

I can't think of many situations where a league or sport has grown massively simply because rich club owners have started spending a lot. Mostly it seems to happen through improved revenue from TV deals, and in cases where there are competing leagues in different countries, a favourable change in the exchange rate.

If salary caps are such obviously bad things for sports, successful leagues wouldn't be implementing them. The French rugby union achieved huge growth during the 2000's and into this decade, but as soon as clubs started spending big they introduced a salary cap. It may be a higher cap limit than that of other leagues, but it's proportional to the money coming into the game. There's been talk of salary caps in football for years but it's at the point where it's almost unworkable, even if FFP regulations are a form of soft cap.

I'm all for Super League increasing the salary cap or ditching the salary cap, but not if it's done solely as the big plan to fix the game. It's nowhere near the biggest issue facing the game right now.

Re: Is RL dead? : Sun May 05, 2019 9:53 pm  

Maurice Lindsay possibly had the answer when SL started with SKY money but the clubs poo pooed it as the mergers were not in the interests of the clubs .

Re: Is RL dead? : Mon May 06, 2019 8:10 am  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

That's a fair point. A lot of sports that implement salary caps are those who have no significant rivals for their talent, such as the major sports like American Football, Basketball and Ice Hockey in the US. However, with only two professional leagues in our sport there's a limit to how much they can actually affect the strength of our game. The depth of talent in Australia doesn't come from pinching players from the UK. The lack of talent over here doesn't come from not being able to import players from overseas, it comes from poor structure from grassroots up to Super League and a lack of exposure for the game.

Expecting the game to improve simply by removing the salary cap is ignoring all the other issues that hold the game back. Long term it would be great to abolish the salary cap, or at least massively increase it, but getting rid of it doesn't automatically make it viable for clubs to spend huge amounts of money. The money to buy better players has to come from somewhere. The best place for that money to come from is a guaranteed source of income (at least for a set period of time) such as money from TV deals. If you start relying on rich owners chucking big money in you end up with a situation where clubs are spending pretty much all of their income, or possibly more, on player wages, a situation that isn't sustainable and can lead to pretty dire consequences, especially when wages become inflated. That's the situation that is currently blighting the Championship and lower league in football.

I can't think of many situations where a league or sport has grown massively simply because rich club owners have started spending a lot. Mostly it seems to happen through improved revenue from TV deals, and in cases where there are competing leagues in different countries, a favourable change in the exchange rate.

If salary caps are such obviously bad things for sports, successful leagues wouldn't be implementing them. The French rugby union achieved huge growth during the 2000's and into this decade, but as soon as clubs started spending big they introduced a salary cap. It may be a higher cap limit than that of other leagues, but it's proportional to the money coming into the game. There's been talk of salary caps in football for years but it's at the point where it's almost unworkable, even if FFP regulations are a form of soft cap.

I'm all for Super League increasing the salary cap or ditching the salary cap, but not if it's done solely as the big plan to fix the game. It's nowhere near the biggest issue facing the game right now.

If we upped the cap or abolished it, we wouldn’t get 25,0000 every game, it is t the b all and end all but it is the biggest one thing that could improve our game.

If teams needs to raise an extra £500,000 a year to pay for players wages it will have to pull its finger out to raise that money and it’s that fear that would drive them.

With the salary cap at exactly the same as the Sky money, the team could spend up to the cap and pay the players wages without even dipping into their own funds. Whatever they make as a club pays for everything else.

Put it one way, you won’t get an extra 3000 fans on the gate by signing a £80,000 a year player but you will if you sign a £500,000 a year player. It pays for itself.

The major issue I’ve got with the salary cap is it hasn’t even gone up with inflation.

Re: Is RL dead? : Mon May 06, 2019 9:09 am  

post wrote:

If we upped the cap or abolished it, we wouldn’t get 25,0000 every game, it is t the b all and end all but it is the biggest one thing that could improve our game.

If teams needs to raise an extra £500,000 a year to pay for players wages it will have to pull its finger out to raise that money and it’s that fear that would drive them.

With the salary cap at exactly the same as the Sky money, the team could spend up to the cap and pay the players wages without even dipping into their own funds. Whatever they make as a club pays for everything else.

Put it one way, you won’t get an extra 3000 fans on the gate by signing a £80,000 a year player but you will if you sign a £500,000 a year player. It pays for itself.

The major issue I’ve got with the salary cap is it hasn’t even gone up with inflation.

I do think there should be greater incentives for teams to increase the revenue they make. The last point you made is important because it makes it perfectly clear that the game has suffered something of a decline. The reasoning given for the cap not increasing with inflation is that it's not affordable. That's a pretty big failure right there.

I don't agree about signing a £500,000 a year player adding 3,000 extra fans (although I know it's a generalisation). I don't think the top players have that much pulling power. I don't think one or two top players can really make enough of a difference, which is why I think the marquee player rule looked great in theory, but hasn't really worked as intended.

As an example, if a Super League club signed Michael Morgan, Mitchell Pearce, Anthony Milford, do you think it would significantly improve attendances? Aussie NRL stars aren't particularly well known among the general public, so increased interest would only really be coming from current fans who have stopped attending. It might bring a slight improvement, but not enough to have a significant impact. And if clubs are paying £500,000-£750,000 for players like that I'd be very doubtful that it would be worth the expense. I don't think rugby league gets the exposure to make the most of the sports biggest names, while the NRL may be one of the best leagues in world sport, but it's still not a big deal in this country to the extend of foreign football leagues or the NFL.

For me the biggest issue with the cap is that it limits what players can earn through image rights. It pretty much disincentivises players looking to gain sponsorship and make themselves into a household name. The salary cap is making it harder for the sport to create stars over here.

I don't agree with all of what Robert Elstone is doing but I do think that making changes to speed the game up were the right way to go about things. I don't think that in itself will revolutionise anything, but it shows action rather than inaction. It suggests we're trying to build Super League into more of a spectacle and that's going to be important ahead of the new TV rights deal. That new deal could be the single most important moment in the history of our professional game. Elstone and Super League clubs have basically taken charge of a competition in decline and have a short period of time in which to turn it around enough to encourage Sky and other broadcasters to pay more for it.

I think a plan to increase the salary cap could work as an incentive to broadcasters to pay a bit more. At present it's no secret that clubs don't have the spending power, so any rise in cap probably won't make any real difference. We need a better TV deal to increase the revenue of clubs and provide an image of a game that's growing rather than one that's in decline. We also need to allow the broadcaster to make the most of our top players.

Throw in some improved engagement with social media, and improving the matchday experience (Wire seem to be leading the way on that front) and I think we can improve what we have enough to boost attendances and viewing figures, get a better TV deal and use that as a springboard for growing the game. Then with the experiments in Toronto, New York and Ottawa we might be able to create greater global interest in the game and shake off the flat capper image of the sport. That's something we should already be doing though.

Re: Is RL dead? : Mon May 06, 2019 11:08 am  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

I do think there should be greater incentives for teams to increase the revenue they make. The last point you made is important because it makes it perfectly clear that the game has suffered something of a decline. The reasoning given for the cap not increasing with inflation is that it's not affordable. That's a pretty big failure right there.

I don't agree about signing a £500,000 a year player adding 3,000 extra fans (although I know it's a generalisation). I don't think the top players have that much pulling power. I don't think one or two top players can really make enough of a difference, which is why I think the marquee player rule looked great in theory, but hasn't really worked as intended.

As an example, if a Super League club signed Michael Morgan, Mitchell Pearce, Anthony Milford, do you think it would significantly improve attendances? Aussie NRL stars aren't particularly well known among the general public, so increased interest would only really be coming from current fans who have stopped attending. It might bring a slight improvement, but not enough to have a significant impact. And if clubs are paying £500,000-£750,000 for players like that I'd be very doubtful that it would be worth the expense. I don't think rugby league gets the exposure to make the most of the sports biggest names, while the NRL may be one of the best leagues in world sport, but it's still not a big deal in this country to the extend of foreign football leagues or the NFL.

For me the biggest issue with the cap is that it limits what players can earn through image rights. It pretty much disincentivises players looking to gain sponsorship and make themselves into a household name. The salary cap is making it harder for the sport to create stars over here.

I don't agree with all of what Robert Elstone is doing but I do think that making changes to speed the game up were the right way to go about things. I don't think that in itself will revolutionise anything, but it shows action rather than inaction. It suggests we're trying to build Super League into more of a spectacle and that's going to be important ahead of the new TV rights deal. That new deal could be the single most important moment in the history of our professional game. Elstone and Super League clubs have basically taken charge of a competition in decline and have a short period of time in which to turn it around enough to encourage Sky and other broadcasters to pay more for it.

I think a plan to increase the salary cap could work as an incentive to broadcasters to pay a bit more. At present it's no secret that clubs don't have the spending power, so any rise in cap probably won't make any real difference. We need a better TV deal to increase the revenue of clubs and provide an image of a game that's growing rather than one that's in decline. We also need to allow the broadcaster to make the most of our top players.

Throw in some improved engagement with social media, and improving the matchday experience (Wire seem to be leading the way on that front) and I think we can improve what we have enough to boost attendances and viewing figures, get a better TV deal and use that as a springboard for growing the game. Then with the experiments in Toronto, New York and Ottawa we might be able to create greater global interest in the game and shake off the flat capper image of the sport. That's something we should already be doing though.

The marquee rule hasn’t really worked because all it’s done is help keep players in Superleague to an extent, rather than maybe attract them. Allowing 3rd party sponsorship and image rights doesn’t make clubs go bust but will allow players to make more money.

There are many ways to get bums on seats but clubs are content in just plodding on whilst the game dies a slow death.

When Superleague was first sounded Maurice Lyndsey said there’s only room for 10 clubs, there’s isn’t the quality or money to spread it out further hence the mergers. I don’t agree with people who want Salford renames as Manchester and the likes as all that will do is kill of the support that’s there.

People look to Toronto as a shining example, but all that is is a load of free tickets and booze for the Canadians, yes there will be genuine fans as a result but mainly it’s people who like a drink and a freebie.

There’s massive issues and we have been on a downward spiral since before Superleague, us and football have gone on to polar opposites of each other. Every other sport seems to have gotten their act together, whether it be boxing and darts with the hearns, or football, union and cricket or even horse racing, how many people go to horse racing now when they have an artist on after it? We need to pull our fingers out big time.

Sky really need to pull their fingers out, if they increase the money they give they get a better standard of game and more fans. If they try and get the TV rights for as little as possible then they’d be doing themselves in the long term, it all depends on this next deal for me. If the deal isn’t good enough to raise the cap then the game is dead.

Re: Is RL dead? : Mon May 06, 2019 9:33 pm  

post wrote:

The marquee rule hasn’t really worked because all it’s done is help keep players in Superleague to an extent, rather than maybe attract them. Allowing 3rd party sponsorship and image rights doesn’t make clubs go bust but will allow players to make more money.

There are many ways to get bums on seats but clubs are content in just plodding on whilst the game dies a slow death.

When Superleague was first sounded Maurice Lyndsey said there’s only room for 10 clubs, there’s isn’t the quality or money to spread it out further hence the mergers. I don’t agree with people who want Salford renames as Manchester and the likes as all that will do is kill of the support that’s there.

People look to Toronto as a shining example, but all that is is a load of free tickets and booze for the Canadians, yes there will be genuine fans as a result but mainly it’s people who like a drink and a freebie.

There’s massive issues and we have been on a downward spiral since before Superleague, us and football have gone on to polar opposites of each other. Every other sport seems to have gotten their act together, whether it be boxing and darts with the hearns, or football, union and cricket or even horse racing, how many people go to horse racing now when they have an artist on after it? We need to pull our fingers out big time.

Sky really need to pull their fingers out, if they increase the money they give they get a better standard of game and more fans. If they try and get the TV rights for as little as possible then they’d be doing themselves in the long term, it all depends on this next deal for me. If the deal isn’t good enough to raise the cap then the game is dead.

The BIG problem here might be that Sky are the only bidder. It's a massive concern is the next TV rights deal.

Re: Is RL dead? : Mon May 06, 2019 9:44 pm  

jaws1 wrote:

Maurice Lindsay possibly had the answer when SL started with SKY money but the clubs poo pooed it as the mergers were not in the interests of the clubs .

Back in 1996, would Wigan and St Helens been happy with a merger of their two clubs. Yes, or no?

Re: Is RL dead? : Mon May 06, 2019 10:43 pm  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

Back in 1996, would Wigan and St Helens been happy with a merger of their two clubs. Yes, or no?

The answer is almost certainly no, but then if Saints and Wigan were to disappear from the game, and take their famous rivalry with them, that would also have been damaging.

However, back in '96 some clubs could have merged and the game might have benefitted. I'm thinking the Cumbrian clubs, clubs in east Manchester like Rochdale and Oldham, some of the smaller clubs in Yorkshire. Don't know how much they'd all have been strengthened in truth, though I'm sure that Cumbria could still put out a decent side if they pooled their resources.

Re: Is RL dead? : Tue May 07, 2019 6:08 am  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

Back in 1996, would Wigan and St Helens been happy with a merger of their two clubs. Yes, or no?

I seem to recall Hull merging with Gateshead and Huddersfield merging with Sheffield. Since the merger, how many home games have Hull played in the NE of England, and how many home games have Huddersfield played outside of Huddersfield?

Re: Is RL dead? : Thu May 09, 2019 7:18 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

The answer is almost certainly no, but then if Saints and Wigan were to disappear from the game, and take their famous rivalry with them, that would also have been damaging.
.

Not to RL out side your areas it wouldn't.