Quote: Roy Haggerty "Based on experience of dealing with journalists, you'd be surprised how big the gap can be between what you say, and what they write down.
I think if every SL club was paying up to the cap each year with money to spare, you'd find that most people within the game, including Leneghan, would be happy to discuss raising the bar in order to allow us to compete a little more with Union and the NRL. The problem is that many clubs don't, and those that do are usually pushing their financial envelope to do so.'"
there are a few reasons why i disagree with this,
firstly, whilst i agree with the important nature of the sustainability of clubs, im not sure on the importance of the profitability,
Secondly, i think it is fundamentally wrong for Leneghan, Hetherington, Pearson, McManus et al to be in charge of the SC. I think it is wrong in pretty much every aspect, for the people who are together deciding the level of the SC to also be the ones who are looking to make money out of the game. There is a vested interest for club chairmen to keep wages at a profitable level. I dont know why we would see Ian Leneghans ability to make a profit as any more important than Sam Tomkins to earn a market wage.
Thirdly, i would disagree that there is a direct correlation between lower wages and increased profitability. There is logic in an argument that states higher wages would lead to better players, which provides a better product which more people are willing to pay more money to watch. Our sustainability is based on the relationship between revenue and costs, effecting either in isolation is pointless. If cutting our costs cuts our revenue its worse than pointless, its counter-productive.
Whilst everyone loves to say a club which failed did so because it failed to 'cut its cloth accordingly', they miss the fact that if you keep 'cutting your cloth accordingly' you will eventually just end up with a very small piece of cloth. People will always say a club which went bust did so because it spent too much, but it is just as valid to say it was because they didnt bring enough in.
We as a game really need to stop looking at things, especially wages, and looking at them solely as costs and not revenue drivers. It doesnt matter if the wages suddenly went up to £10m a year, if it gets us a £150m per year TV deal then it isnt profligate.
