Quote: bren2k "If you over-value, you overspend; you're nit-picking on language. And no, I'm not changing the terminology or conclusions to suit - I'm summarising the findings of research specifically into SC's in sport, which is extensive, academic and credible.'"
But a club over-spending is different to my point which was regarding the value of players.
Quote: bren2k "Different kind of inflation - as you well know, so it really is logical; if certain teams can suddenly inflate the wages of players to attract them to their clubs, less wealthy clubs either have to gamble to keep up by paying more than they can afford, or fall behind - both resulting in financial difficulties. The more likely scenario is that certain teams have a roster of internationals and talent is aggregated at those clubs - damaging the competitiveness of the league and impacting negatively on spectator interest at all but the wealthiest teams.'"
in principle it is the same kind of inflation. My wage inflates not to keep pace which general inflation but (in simple terms) to keep me from leaving to a competitor.
There isnt a relationship (at the top level) between affordability and the cap. Part of the franchising criteria was a £4m turnover, so we can safely assume some clubs were below or at least around that amount. So we can see that some clubs will be spending towards 50% of their turnover on wages, whereas others would be spending closer to around 15-20%, this is important........
Quote: bren2k "I don't know.'"
because talent already aggregates at the big clubs and smaller clubs will always have to gamble on spending more (relative to both their own turnover, in relation to the big clubs, and absolutely) to keep up, but the salary cap reduces the chances of the smaller club being able to achieve success.
And again, the spread or movement of talent from big to smaller, and the limiting of talent being brought in by the big clubs can be achieved better in other ways.
Quote: bren2k "US anti-trust law was based on UK anti-competition law - and now the influence is strongly in the other direction; EU law applies in some cases (possibly SL, since the inclusion of a French team means it crosses borders) and again, that was heavily influenced by the US model; so whilst the terminology and laws are different, they will be closely aligned and I just can't see an agreement that has been subject to collective bargaining being ruled any differently here than it was in the US. And if the SL players union is toothless - perhaps that's something for Jon Wilkin and his comrades to sort out - not a judge.
In terms of it working in everyone's favour - you miss out a key stakeholder group - the supporters; and it would be fairly straightforward to argue that an unregulated bun fight for players signatures would not be in their favour. Unless they happen to be supporters of a club with unlimited funds of course, which is exactly what a SC seeks to avoid.'"
Even if we accept that the US anti-trust law is by and large identical to ours (im not saying it is) then Super league's application of it simply isnt anywhere close to US sports application of it.
And the best way for the SL players to assert their rights would be through legal judgement.
Im not forgetting the Supporters, because it can be strongly argued that the SC cap disadvantages supporters by excluding the best players in Rugby from SL, by the entrenchment of success, in our system by disadvantaging some clubs from promotion and all the arguments negative to the SC.
Quote: bren2k "In economic terms, there is no meaningful substitute; if Coca Cola put their fizzy spew up to £5 a tin, I can buy Pepsi's alternative spew - or a supermarket own brand. If Wakefield put their ticket price up to football levels or go out of business, I can't suddenly start supporting Leeds, or go to the pictures instead - sport doesn't work like that, nor should it, and economists understand that perfectly well - hence the significant amount of research into the subject.
I hope Derek Beaumont does take the RFL to court over the SC - I think he'd lose, and the concept of the SC would have a sound basis in law - then we can stop arguing about it.'"
Its not a fashionable statement, but it is undoubtedly true, but if Wakefield were to go out of business you can suddenly start supporting leeds, you could go to the pictures, you can go watch a different sport.
As for if Beaumont were to take the RFL to court (or a player were) i would question how far SL/The RFL would go to enforce a rule that actually has no benefit to them. I guess on the Marwan/Evalds thread we might be seeing an answer soon.
