Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"Taking your example, what if Castleford maximum budget is the 1.65m and not a penny more without putting risk on other areas of the business - even though they CAN spend another 50k, it would endanger normal operating costs.
This puts clubs in a sticky spot. Most fans won't and don't care about the regular running of the club, only results on the pitch. Do they spend the extra to placate the fans, encouraging increased debt and potentially a Bradford style spiral? Or do they not use it and risk the fury of the fans, and potentially the ability to challenge for the sake of still operating?
It is incredibly naive to think this is good for all clubs. It's especially bad for championship clubs in the middle 8s.
It's also bad to a certain extent for the clubs who adopt the rule first. Say Warrington sign Cronk. Hill and Ratchford will be subjected to that time of tempts and offers from other clubs, knowing Warrington can't offer them the same - how long before a club successfully unsettles one? Is a superstar worth unsettling your current best players?'"
But with the TV income the clubs receive covering the £1.8M cap from 2017 onwards, surely even the lowest income clubs would be able to make use of the marquee allowance? The differnce will be the size of the marquee wage from club to club.
I'd like to see published basic salary cap increases announced so the clubs know what they are aiming for in terms of future financial performance. Even if they are only increasing in line with inflation. i.e.
2017: £1.85M
2018: £1.90M
2019: £1.95M
2020: £2.00M etc etc.
As for unsettling the rest of the squad, you get pay variances across all professional sports teams, I guess the difference here is that you will have someone specifically named as the 'marquee player'. At the end of the day it's up to the coaches to manage that situation. Obviously the marquee player is also in the yawnion salary cap - don't follow it to know if that has caused issues?
