The Salary (Handi)Cap : Thu May 07, 2009 1:27 pm  

I have been on the Leigh site and noticed that there are quite a few players expected to join Gateshead soon. Most of these appear to be former NRL players whilst at the moment we find ourselves in the predicament of wanting to add to the squad and not being able to due to the salary cap.
I'm not entirely sure but Gateshead, Toulouse, Barrow and Sheffield are now qualified as expansion clubs which is just below half the clubs in the league.

My understanding of the cap is that it is there for the following reasons
i) to provide a level playing field across the division
ii) to prevent clubs from spending more than they can afford on players

Now.. As I understand it expansion clubs are able to break the cap in order to compensate for the lack of natural local talent but what this is doing is giving them an unfair advantage over other clubs. Experienced pro's will normally provide an advantage over a team consisting of local youths.

In the second instance another purpose of the licence system was to prevent clubs from adopting the poop or bust attitude of putting everything into one season. Seeing as clubs accounts now should come under more scrutiny then surely this second point doesn't hold up.

Also how can a club expect to put together a squad capable of competing in SL when the salary cap in NL1 is £400 and the SL cap is £1.6million. An absolutely massive gap!!

What I'm saying is that surely now the time has come for the salary cap in the Championship to be lifted to something more reasonable.
They could maybe introduce some sort of check against club accounts or assurances in the form of a cash bond or something similar to a margin account in stockbroking but for me £400k is currently binding our wrists.

I'm certainly asking the question on Tuesday night about whether this can be investigated / challenged.

: Thu May 07, 2009 2:05 pm  

Problem is exaactly that, we could afford it being higher not sure other teams could!

So do you let Widnes spend twice as much and 'dominate' (not with us let's be honest) the division? But as you say move to SL would then become easier!

: Thu May 07, 2009 2:33 pm  

J20 wrote:

Problem is exaactly that, we could afford it being higher not sure other teams could!

So do you let Widnes spend twice as much and 'dominate' (not with us let's be honest) the division? But as you say move to SL would then become easier!

The way I see it is quite simply this... a club should be allowed to spend within it's means, but I agree there should be controls in place to validate this.
Part of the licence criteria is to determine whether a club is fit for SL.. surely one of the better ways of demonstrating this is allowing it to flex it's financial muscle a little. Being allowed to play more means that better players can be attracted to the club, hopefully a better style of play is encouraged and more fans turn up as a result. I know this hasn't always happened but it really is about putting the controls in place.. %'s of club developed players playing in a % of games.
At the moment it is a challenge of working on a budget..
We are currently being punished for having a coach in place at the start of the season that recruited a bad mix.. our hands are now being tied despite us having the financial clout to do something about this. Plus at the same time is it also contributing to the unhappiness at the club with players being paid vastly unequal sums??

: Thu May 07, 2009 3:57 pm  

[quote="In EnemyTerritory"]The way I see it is quite simply this... a club should be allowed to spend within it's means, but I agree there should be controls in place to validate this.
Part of the licence criteria is to determine whether a club is fit for SL.. surely one of the better ways of demonstrating this is allowing it to flex it's financial muscle a little. Being allowed to play more means that better players can be attracted to the club, hopefully a better style of play is encouraged and more fans turn up as a result. I know this hasn't always happened but it really is about putting the controls in place.. %'s of club developed players playing in a % of games.
At the moment it is a challenge of working on a budget..
We are currently being punished for having a coach in place at the start of the season that recruited a bad mix.. our hands are now being tied despite us having the financial clout to do something about this. Plus at the same time is it also contributing to the unhappiness at the club with players being paid vastly unequal sums??[/quote]

Tough. You still have the same people in charge that agreed to the coach getting these players and agreeing what they would pay them.

And what would happen if for any reason SOC decided he had had enough? - you would end up like you were a couple of seasons ago. This thread reminds me of the Wigan thread a couple of years ago when they wanted to buy their way out of trouble. Teams know the rules - and they have to do their best within them.

Re: The Salary (Handi)Cap : Thu May 07, 2009 5:06 pm  

In EnemyTerritory wrote:

I have been on the Leigh site and noticed that there are quite a few players expected to join Gateshead soon. Most of these appear to be former NRL players whilst at the moment we find ourselves in the predicament of wanting to add to the squad and not being able to due to the salary cap.
I'm not entirely sure but Gateshead, Toulouse, Barrow and Sheffield are now qualified as expansion clubs which is just below half the clubs in the league.

My understanding of the cap is that it is there for the following reasons
i) to provide a level playing field across the division
ii) to prevent clubs from spending more than they can afford on players

Now.. As I understand it expansion clubs are able to break the cap in order to compensate for the lack of natural local talent but what this is doing is giving them an unfair advantage over other clubs. Experienced pro's will normally provide an advantage over a team consisting of local youths.

In the second instance another purpose of the licence system was to prevent clubs from adopting the poop or bust attitude of putting everything into one season. Seeing as clubs accounts now should come under more scrutiny then surely this second point doesn't hold up.

Also how can a club expect to put together a squad capable of competing in SL when the salary cap in NL1 is £400 and the SL cap is £1.6million. An absolutely massive gap!!

What I'm saying is that surely now the time has come for the salary cap in the Championship to be lifted to something more reasonable.
They could maybe introduce some sort of check against club accounts or assurances in the form of a cash bond or something similar to a margin account in stockbroking but for me £400k is currently binding our wrists.

I'm certainly asking the question on Tuesday night about whether this can be investigated / challenged.

Is this true???