Tilt - Game Over ? : Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:37 pm  

Time to comment lads, current game may be over ! ??? Read about the Hearne brothers who want to turn the clock back by removing salary cap ! All in the Guardian. Also read opinions on leeds forum. It may all go to only 3 clubs able to compete ?
Sallery cap still runs in the NRL in spite of more money, the difference is their system differs on clubs over reaching salary cap at the end of a season, then the bottom 3 clubs get first choice of players having to be cast off by top clubs. The theory being that evening up of crowds - gates are better once anyone can win with the lower clubs turning around their fortunes.
However imo their game is stronger because more people play the game at 2nd grade & semi-pro adopted clubs
Paid for by the main parent club which all NRL clubs have !
What ever your opinions are this issue is massive & cannot be ignored !

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:56 pm  

The salary cap arguably holds back big clubs to the detriment of the domestic game whilst not particularly helping the smaller clubs. Look at the Grand Final wins. Same clubs win. Wakey cannot compete under the current format in reality. At the same time, our best players head down under. We'll get to the point soon where the whole England first choice 17 will be Aussie-based. How can that benefit?

The only proviso I would add is that it has to be capped to the income levels, rather than a set limit. Rewards off-field success whilst ensuring clubs do not go bankrupt trying to compete.

But the salary cap success? Twenty years of Grand Finals and only four clubs have won it, and one of them is a couple of leagues below right now, with all our best players down there, and no good Aussie players playing here. Hardly an endorsement.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:17 pm  

Income levels all ready apply, they are based on gates-numbers, money generated & ability to fund special players.
Current big clubs maintain their position.
They like to think/feel it's to the benefit of the game.
Therefore you could point out in your argument same four clubs only win, that therefore would be maintained more!
Therefore no hope of ever changing season and outcomes therefore the sport would decreased further, therefore other clubs may as well pack up or supporters never go to games against top four because they know the outcome - pointless .
Maybe only have a league of four top clubs, top money, best players, 7 games, a final, end of season as there the best games, end of !

[PopTart]

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:07 am  

The measure of the salary cap is as much about how many go into Admin as much as how many win the GF.
Salary cap is not a bad thing but it is well outdated.
At the moment it holds the top ones back.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:47 am  

I've long been an advocate of the SC - for all the seemingly intuitive, logical reasons; preventing aggregation of talent at wealthy clubs, loss of competitive balance and as a result, loss of interest from supporters.

I'm less convinced these days - largely because the cap in RL is a very blunt instrument, and hasn't risen in line with inflation; and because I have a very amateur interest in economics, there's plenty of serious research from more mature markets, to suggest that salary caps have no effect on competitive balance - or spectator interest.

I wouldn't be against a total overhaul, but done by someone who understands the constraints of a limited broadcast sponsorship deal; and I'm sure that some clubs wouldn't like the conclusions, because they generally involve some form of revenue sharing, and a greater responsibility on the clubs themselves to generate more income.

I don't think Matchroom are necessarily the entire answer - but their credibility can't be questioned; what they've done with darts and boxing is undeniable.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:10 am  

Increasing the cap is such a simplistic idea but no one has explained where the money will come from to do it.
Arguably Wigan are the largest club in Sl and yet lost over £400K this season. Ken Davey has to find £1M per season out of his own funds to keep Shudds alive. Double the cap and he will soon blow all his wealth.

Finally money is so tight we have to keep a 12 team sL so the big boys have a greater slice of what pie there is.


Oh and I forgot , what do we do with the extra cap money ?, we may tempt an handful of extra players but basically the vast majority will end up in the pockets of the players already contracted. Can't see how that grows the game.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:21 am  

Prince Buster wrote:

Increasing the cap is such a simplistic idea but no one has explained where the money will come from to do it.
Arguably Wigan are the largest club in Sl and yet lost over £400K this season. Ken Davey has to find £1M per season out of his own funds to keep Shudds alive. Double the cap and he will soon blow all his wealth.

Finally money is so tight we have to keep a 12 team sL so the big boys have a greater slice of what pie there is.


Oh and I forgot , what do we do with the extra cap money ?, we may tempt an handful of extra players but basically the vast majority will end up in the pockets of the players already contracted. Can't see how that grows the game.

As I said, it's way more complicated and nuanced than simply removing the cap - which don't forget isn't money given to a club - they're just allowed to spend more if they have it.

And the research I've seen suggests that it works best when a) clubs make more money from their own activities and b) it's combined with some kind of revenue sharing system - both of which options would annoy different types of club; option a would be negative for clubs like us right now, because we can't increase income, and option b would be negative for clubs who can do option a, because clubs like us (and the lower tiers) would see some of that revenue redistributed.

There are solutions that could work - but RL is probably not the sport to implement them, being as it is parochial, backward looking and a touch desperate.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:59 pm  

For me this would be a big no.

I think to remove the cap, we would see clubs go to the wall, in trying to keep up with the few that can afford to spend freely.

We are a good example on the proof that you dont always have to spend big to get the required results, just invest wisely.

I do think though, that to compete with the NRL, we do need to increase the cap little and often. Also on the other hand there was stories coming out a while back, how collectively, the NRL clubs were in debt by several million Aus $. Maybe they need to reduce their cap a little, and the gap in the cap of the two leagues starts to reduce.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:37 pm  

Why not just put the 4 clubs or more who want to spend more in one league and rest who want to be more sensible in another league. I am sure the league with more sensible would be 2-3 times larger than the big spenders and their product would be pretty poor.

Re: Tilt - Game Over ? : Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:03 pm  

Firstly let me begin by saying that as a Wakefield fan I dont want the cap to increase as I think we would end up losing the likes of Tom, Bill toupou etc to clubs with more money. At the end of the day, eventually money will talk- everyone has a price.

However as a RL fan, I think it needs to. Look at the premier league, I would hardly say it's an open league. There's only been 6 teams (two have won it once during on-off freak seasons) that have won it in 20+ years, yet it is the most financially profitable football league in the world. Essentially there are two leagues within the league, similar to super league. Increasing the cap should hopefully allow the retention of the Ben Barbas, Sam tomkins when he was in his prime when he was all over the media, Burgess' etc or attract other similar super stars, which should in turn increase TV revenue deals etc.

If the salary cap is to increase then it needs to be done sensibly, to prevent clubs going in to admin when a sugar daddy walks away. I would base any individual clubs salary cap on their income, with any money given to the club by a sugar daddy, to be guaranteed for a future time period. Lets say 2 years. Therefore, if anyone walks away from a club, then the club can appropriately cut its cloth in this time period preventing this club from going in to administration, and also players/ backroom staff getting put out of a job.

I appreciate it isn't as simple as all of this though