: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:10 pm  

The RL salary cap has been increased this year by £50k to £1.65 million

Its also not much of a revelation that RU has a £4.4 million cap. Its nothing new. RU teams also gat salaries of England players paid for them as well. The RFU gives a club £145,000 for each England player produced per season. This is compensation for the fact those players are limited in the amount of games they can play in a season for a club.

RL's salary cap is already at a level that the game can barely afford. So i dont see how we can increase it. Especially in a time of depression.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:05 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

The cap should go back to how it was proposed, a percentage of turnover.

That way a club that grows can have more to invest. Rugby League however has the tail wagging the dog.

The present system allows clubs to spend money they don't have.

If you have a system based on turnover then Leeds would be able to buy all the best players and pay them twice as much as any other club.

Also turnover as a raw measure is a very simple way of measuring a clubs ability to afford a higher wage structure.
For example club "A" could have a turnover of £4 million but have to pay their landlords £1 million to rent the stadium for a season.
club "B" has a turnover of £3.2 million but gets their stadium free from the council and pays no rent for it.
If we go under the 50% rule club A could spend more on players than club B, however in reality club B could actually better afford to spend more money on players than club A.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:06 pm  

Maybe it should be a set figure like the 1.65 mill mentioned plus a percentage of the profit margin.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:15 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

It would mean you lot would waste even more money on past it aussies and still fail as badly as you fail at being a troll.

Oh I dont know, I think I am having moderate success as a troll, just look how many bites my last comment got - you included

C
H
O
M
P
!

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:24 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

1) If you have a system based on turnover then Leeds would be able to buy all the best players and pay them twice as much as any other club.

Also turnover as a raw measure is a very simple way of measuring a clubs ability to afford a higher wage structure.


2) For example club "A" could have a turnover of £4 million but have to pay their landlords £1 million to rent the stadium for a season.
club "B" has a turnover of £3.2 million but gets their stadium free from the council and pays no rent for it.
If we go under the 50% rule club A could spend more on players than club B, however in reality club B could actually better afford to spend more money on players than club A.

1) Then it's up to the rest of the clubs to catch them

2) You can't cover for every eventuality, and in that case you have mentioned the team paying 1 million may have to find further income from better sponsorship, increased crowds, better merchandising or negotiate a better lease on the stadium.


The game can't and shouldn't be ruled to the lowest common denominator. Whether you care to agree or not I believe the playing standards are slipping.

Re: Salary cap : Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:54 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

With the revelation this week that Union has a £4 million salary cap, has it become time to increase ours? the original reason was so no clubs (like wigan and leeds) go bankrupt chasing success.
I suggest to keep the original idea, but allow clubs to spend half of their turnover, whatever that was the previous finacial year on wages. As the finacial year end april 5th clubs would know in good time how much they have to spend next year on contracts. Currently i estimate this would give saints a salary cap of around £2.5 million which we would not have to spend all of.
your thoughts???

With clubs like Bristol and Newcastle in serious financial difficulties because of the £4m salary cap, I think we should let the RU go on its own destructive way. The salary cap in Super League is about right, it is levelling the playing field, and ensuring that we don't lose our top players.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:54 pm  

donkey O'tay wrote:

Maybe it should be a set figure like the 1.65 mill mentioned plus a percentage of the profit margin.

because it makes it impossible to negotiate long term contracts with players. if you dont know what you are allowed to spend, how can you plan, therefore clubs are more likely to go for short term deals with aging aussies.

Re: Salary cap : Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:08 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

With clubs like Bristol and Newcastle in serious financial difficulties because of the £4m salary cap, I think we should let the RU go on its own destructive way. The salary cap in Super League is about right, it is levelling the playing field, and ensuring that we don't lose our top players.

The Rugby Union is a level playing field (in this country). They can all spend the same £4 million.

The problem with the Rugby League one is we are levelling DOWN to the lowest common denominator.

Who would have believed a few years ago that Rugby Union Preiership games would now be attracting as many if not more spectators than Rugby League Superleague games.