Quote: Dita's Slot Meter "Looking at this thread as an outsider, it's good to see that many here share the view that ambitious clubs shouldn't be penalised for showing that ambition and, at the same time, maintaining the quality and appeal of the competition in what are going to be difficult and unprecedented times ahead.
With Wire's signing of Inglis today, it is obviously a warning shot to Hetherington and the others who are looking to stifle the competition simply because they can't keep up financially - it's not like this is a cap increase, it's a decrease, basically a drop in standards in the long term, as players will rightly look to Australia or RU to support their incomes.
I also can't help but feel that the talk of franchises and a restructure of the league will rear its head again soon, if these financial rumblings continue. It's obvious there are 2 tiers now financially in the present league. In these unpredictable times, it makes no sense for the financially stronger sides to be held back by other clubs... let's face it, there are a couple of clubs who should already have been kicked out of the league years ago.'"
I think that there is a place in sport for some sort of financial-leveling, but a blanket hard cap is a blunt instrument that arguably does more harm than good.
A better solution in my opinion would be a form of financial fair play where the cap is based on a percentage of turnover. The cap already had this element, but it was abolished around 2002.
Set the cap at a percentage of club turnover, have a mechanism in place to limit the contribution of "directors loans" that will never be repaid and then force clubs to think about their wider business. If you want to compete financially with the big boys on the field, invest in growing the business off the field to pay for it.
