: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:10 pm  

Apologies if this has been covered, but I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere that the powers that be at the RFU are now getting worried about the threat of French RU and them enticing top players to play their trade in France. The RFU have used to carrot of representing England as a tool to encourage the players to remain in the English game. This suggests that they are unable to match the French RU clubs offer financially. This to me says it all about player movements.

Agents will always look to get the best deal for themselves and their client. The RU clubs are offering a small fortune to the better RL players to switch codes and they are equally being hit by French RU clubs offering even more money for their better players to go to France. It s a free market and they will go where the best deal is. The RU clubs have the added benefit of the financial backing of the RFU which league quite simply does not have.

I agree that some sort of SC alteration with regards to only 50% of a home grown academy products wage counting against the cap, but for different reasons. This should be used to encourage clubs to develop there own rather then relaying upon imports.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:44 pm  

poorlytoe wrote:

Massive thread, so not sure if it's been mentioned before, but have any of you noticed the agent involved in Farrell, Ashton et al....and now mentioned with Smith. And put two and two together?

Chris Ashtons and Andy Farrells agent is Andy Clarke, brother of former Wigan player Phil Clarke.

Is he also Smiths agent?

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:48 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: Chris Ashtons and Andy Farrells agent is Andy Clarke, brother of former Wigan player Phil Clarke. Is he also Smiths agent? http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/200 ... -21209615/

Rogues Gallery wrote: Chris Ashtons and Andy Farrells agent is Andy Clarke, brother of former Wigan player Phil Clarke. Is he also Smiths agent? http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/200 ... -21209615/

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:07 pm  

poorlytoe wrote:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/2009/03/19/leeds-rhinos-may-lose-england-star-lee-smith-115875-21209615/

Andy Clarke is a c~@k of the highest order, he basically made a name for himself off the back of his families name in League and is intent on pushing his players towards union, he was also behind the move that saw Rads almost go to Union.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:05 pm  

jonh wrote:

Andy Clarke is a c~@k of the highest order, he basically made a name for himself off the back of his families name in League and is intent on pushing his players towards union, he was also behind the move that saw Rads almost go to Union.

He was also behind 'Mooregate' and will quite clearly stop at nothing in his race to earn a quick buck.

I agree with your description!

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:15 am  

SBR wrote:

The over-riding aim of the salary cap is to create a more competitive competition. This it is succeeding in doing.



Paying the same amount on wages isn't level? Maybe teams that can afford to spend more on wages should be allowed to field more players. After all they can afford to.

Leeds are another good example. As jonh said they used to waste vast amounts of money failing to compete with Wigan. Now the SC has brought them to the point where they have achieved great success by doing the right things, by investing in youth, by putting systems in place to regulate players' pay and avoid overpaying players. You think this is bad?
When other clubs follow this example they will be rewarded with success and we will be rewarded with more competitive matches at the highest level. This would not be possible without the salary cap.



This is a problem. Fortunately as the competition has improved interest in it has risen and so revenue has risen at these clubs. Of course if they were getting hammered every week this wouldn't happen but the salary cap stops that.



Unrestricted spending will simply lead to wage inflation. The same players just paid more. This might stop one or two from going to Union but at a very high cost.

Having one or two clubs in a competition who are vastly superior to the rest creates a poor competition. Which is a poor product for the clubs to sell. For this reason the SL clubs agreed to limit spending on salaries to create a better competition. It is working, attendances are up, viewing figures are up. Now you want to destroy that just because another sport wants to pay one player more than he is worth?

checkmate

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:55 am  

SBR wrote:

The over-riding aim of the salary cap is to create a more competitive competition. This it is succeeding in doing.

so why arent smaller clubs challenging

Paying the same amount on wages isn't level?

no, it it is artificial way of bringing any club which excels either on or of the pitch back to the level of those who arent

Maybe teams that can afford to spend more on wages should be allowed to field more players. After all they can afford to.

maybe smaller teams should have a 10 point head start every game, make sure they dont have to rely on building a competitive squad to be competitive

Leeds are another good example. As jonh said they used to waste vast amounts of money failing to compete with Wigan. Now the SC has brought them to the point where they have achieved great success by doing the right things, by investing in youth, by putting systems in place to regulate players' pay and avoid overpaying players. You think this is bad?

leeds can invest in youth anyway, they can regulate wages anyway, you seem to be arguing that the only thing stopping paul caddick, a self made man worth hundreds of millions of pounds from suddenly forgetting all the business principles which got him there and wasting his money is the sc, which is a mental argument

When other clubs follow this example they will be rewarded with success and we will be rewarded with more competitive matches at the highest level. This would not be possible without the salary cap.

why wouldnt it. and surely clubs shouldnt only need to do the same but better or something different so the game can evolve and move forward.

what you are proposing is stagnation

This is a problem. Fortunately as the competition has improved interest in it has risen and so revenue has risen at these clubs. Of course if they were getting hammered every week this wouldn't happen but the salary cap stops that.

you should tell leigh, fax, salford, celtic, you, and cas that, because all have had seasons where they were hammered every week

Unrestricted spending will simply lead to wage inflation. The same players just paid more. This might stop one or two from going to Union but at a very high cost.

a high cost to who. who is going to start massively overpaying players

Having one or two clubs in a competition who are vastly superior to the rest creates a poor competition. Which is a poor product for the clubs to sell. For this reason the SL clubs agreed to limit spending on salaries to create a better competition. It is working, attendances are up, viewing figures are up

and yet all this has happened whilst leeds and saints have been vastly superior, it has happened when leeds won back to back titles, when saints have won 4 challenge cups, when leeds won the league by a record margin, the evidence for your point just isnt there

Now you want to destroy that just because another sport wants to pay one player more than he is worth?

who decides a players worth, what if he is worth more but cant be paid his worth because of the sc, what if hes leaving not because ru overpay but we underpay

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:59 am  

Seen something on here saying the league gets less entertaining each season IMO could not be more wrong as I believe it gets better and better each season.

Ok there is Saints and Leeds then after that it’s more or less an even playing filed, most of the other teams have a chance of getting the top 8.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:00 pm  

adam9641 wrote:

Seen something on here saying the league gets less entertaining each season IMO could not be more wrong as I believe it gets better and better each season.

Ok there is Saints and Leeds then after that it’s more or less an even playing filed, most of the other teams have a chance of getting the top 8.

It is possible for the league to get more entertaining yet for the standard to drop.


What i want is the standards and entertainment to improve year on year, for the last 5 years i think standards have decreases year on year.


Regards unlimited spending, I do not want unlimited spending I am fully suportive of the cap, i just personally feel the cap should reward comercial success and player development not hinder it.

: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:08 pm  

ok i've read some interesting thoughts here. 1. the salary cap will take a few years to actually come through onto the field.

2. the RFL needs to seriously look at the NFL system of administration. for example in the NFL all merchandise is sold on behalf of the NFL not of the clubs. at the end of the season all revenue from merchandise and tv is divided by 32 and given to each of the teams.

3. tv! now for you lot north of birmingham you probably don't appreciate that you can't see rugby on tv! i don't have sky sports so i can't see any rugby league unless its s challange cup match on bbc, or the superleague highlights show on the bbc red button. this needs to be seriously addressed by the powers that be. league is a summer sport what competition does it have for coverage on the bbc? athletics? cricket (mostly on sky) tennis and bowls!

4. how many league players since 2000 have actually had a huge impact in union? Jason Robinson, lets face the guy was the pure athlete and could have gone to the top in just about anything invovling his feet! any more? no big les lots of money for a move to union whats he actually done nothing, a few england caps which were probably part of the deal but nothing since. Andy Farrell? where do we begin they didn't know which position to put him in to behonest i thought he should have been made a flanker but no they put him at centre, great move at club level however what happend at international level he was shown to be serverly lacking pace for an international centre. anymore for anymore? a few big names have come across and none have made a huge impact.

5. how long will union keep paying BIG money for players who are the business in league but come to union and fail to live up to expectations. this is not because they are not as good as they appear to be its because the game is played in a way that doesn't suit they're skills. (its a different game)

6. the salary cap is ruining SL the RU SC is twice as high. ok lets look at this, the squad size is much bigger and some of the guys are only their for the sake of being there i'm talking front row replacements here, suitably trained front row replacements paid money to have their name on a sheet becuase the IRB regs say so.

the SC is designed to make the game more competitive, this wont happen overnight, it wont happen in a year it will be a gradual process but will improve the package product of superleague.

7. a competitive SL with a effective salary cap will be a fantastic product! the game now is a great viewer spectacle but lets face it its the same 4 clubs winning the titles.

my thoughts for the future are a shared revenue scheme to share all money raised between the clubs equally, and for god sake can we get some better tv exposure or even in the papers. daily newspapers you get 10 pages of soccer. 1 page of union and 1 column of league.

surely the SLTV can be expanded to show games on the net? even if they are not live but downloaded. (a system used by the baseballs MLB.com) charge for a season pass or £2 for a download and again share the revenue throughout the league. this means more money for youth more money for stadiums and a decent footing to compete nationally with union