Sums the whole thread up nicely.

And so we come round again to the point IL should be working to raise it, not be saying he is comfortable with it or can work with it. As "the best" can't be accommodated under the cap he clearly can't do the latter in the way many people want so he shouldn't be comfortable with it.

Here are a couple of extracts from an article in today’s Big League magazine discussing the NRL salary cap. These come from David Garnsey who is the Rugby League Players’ Association CEO.

I think they are relevant to this thread and seemed balanced and enlightened to my way of thinking. The second extract is referring to a new feature of the NRL cap structure whereby teams have to spend a certain percentage (believed to be 90%) of the maximum cap as a minimum. I think this is something that would improve the competitiveness of the game over here and call the bluff of those teams potentially dragging the competition down.


[i"By definition the salary cap is a restraint on what players can earn so that is a concern. But on the other side of things there’s obviously an interest in maintaining competitive balance within the competition. That enhances the attractiveness of the game, therefore it attracts sponsors and it attracts fans. It’s all about striking the right balance so the salary cap is not too low based on what the economy of the game is, because then it would be an unreasonable restraint perhaps. But if the cap is at a level which fairly reflects the revenue to which the players are entitled and has some effect in making the game more attractive to the people we are seeking to attract to it, it is defensible."


"The salary cap will increase but just as importantly – if not more importantly – is the imposition of a floor across all player remuneration. There’s an increased focus not just on how much clubs can spend, but what they must spend. A floor compels clubs to provide remuneration to players above a certain level.[/i"

That is far too sensible - would never happen here - the RFL have never seemed to be sure what the salary cap is actually for.

I suspect though that one major difference is that the gap between the clubs (in finance and in ambition) in the NFL is much less than it is in SL, so there is much more good will in the NFL for changes than in SL, sadly there are too many clubs in SL for whom survival is deemed to be success rather than anything loftier.

I have said before it ought to be a criteria of SL membership you can spend to the cap limit. Given ours is so low I don't think that is an unreasonable stance to take.

The NRL also has a minimum player wage which has just gone up to the equivalent of £53K a season. I believe this is for squad players numbered 18-25.

What the quotes you posted also show is there is an acceptance of the fact that the players in Oz are entitled to benefit in proportion to the financial well being of the sport. Basically given the sport is coining it then they accept the players are entitled to benefit with higher wages. Otherwise as the quotes point out the cap ends up acting as a restraint of trade. Over here we seem to have the opposite attitude and get quotes from IL about why would he want to pay more?

I think this illustrates a huge difference in thinking and it isn't just about how much money is available its about recognising the players worth and that top class players bring revenue to the game as they attract higher sponsorship. We seem to be in a way of thinking whereby it is all about how can we manage on £1.6m with players value not being recognised in anything like the same way. They are almost cannon fodder to be paid as little as possible. Paying as little as possible maybe the way of big business but it isn't the way in pro sport and I think from those quotes the Aussies have it taped about what RL being professional means monetarily. I don't think the RFL and SL have a clue in comparison.

Now now Smokey. Don't go spoiling things with facts.

As for the salary cap, I think people are forgetting the practicalities. The NRL salary cap is set to rise to $7m which is around £4.6m. How much profit does Wigan usually make? Can they afford an extra £3m? I know Leeds can't despite being the richest club outside the NRL.

As others have mentioned most clubs can't afford the current cap and even the rich clubs cant afford a much increased cap, so what exactly is the point in massively raising the cap? It's merely encouraging a club to bankrupt itself. The 50% of income rule is irrelevant too, since clubs can't afford it. IIRC with a 50% rule Wigan could spend a cap of around £3.5m, but they can't afford that. Leeds would be allowed to spend around £6m, yet can't afford to.
Introduce a few exemptions for certain players and maybe a small increase of 1/200k is about all that can be done realistically.

We're simply going to have to accept the fact that both Union and the NRL can afford to pay more than we can, as any increase in the cap isn't going to suddenly magic money out of thin air.

I don't think anyone sensible is calling for a massively increased cap as you put it. People are (rightly) concerned that Lenagan has given his approval of not increasing the cap AT ALL! As you say, small increases / exemptions are realistic and should be happening.

If we just give up and don't raise it at all, it'll be curtains for pro RL within 10-15 years.

The blame for all this lies firmly with the RFL and the Super League Chairmen who have made some wholly moronic business decisions taking this sport forward. The worst one has to be giving away the Super League sponsorship for free to Stobart to have a few RL players on the backs of lorries. We now don't have a title sponsor at all and is it any wonder? Could you imagine Rugby Union officials making a similar decision? Incidentally Rugby Union signed a four year £20 million deal with Aviva. We gave our name out for free to Stobart. The previous Engage deal was (reportedly) worth £1.2 million a year.

How is it that a sport that pulls in better viewing figures than Rugby Union ends up with a £90 million over five years (approx £18 million a year) tv deal and RU are able to negotiate a £152 million tv deal over four years (approx 38 million a year)?

It is situations like the ones mentioned that is crippling our sport.

We are in a difficult situation. Our salary cap is not going up anytime soon. The wages for a professional RL player deteriorate every year. The fact that in sixteen years we have not kept RL wages in line with inflation is ridiculous.

The key decisions our administrators make for our game in the next few years are of the most important in our history IMO. If we continue to make poor business decisions as a game that does not encourage growth in line with other competitions then I cannot see any other result other than us becoming a sub-standard competition that has to revert back to being semi-professional.

I think Leeds and possibly Wigan probably could afford to spend quite a bit more on players' wages - albeit maybe not an extra £3m. But it would just involve gutting all the community and non-on field activities which both clubs plough money into which have no obvious direct business benefit.

No one has forgetten anything because no one is suggesting they can. The NRL clubs can't finance a $7m cap off their [uown[/u turnover/profits either.

They are financing it off the back of TV money which has resulted in a grant of $7.1m a year.

I am sure there are NRL clubs that are as rich as Leeds when you look at their own income streams and revenues but they could not afford to pay to the 2013 cap of $5.85m without the huge cash injection the sport over there gets so it is disingenuous to imply our clubs are just not rich enough to do so when the NRL clubs aren't either.

It's all about external funding and whether or not we can get it and if the RFL and chairmen like IL are seeking to do so.

No one is suggesting the cap be raised to £4.6m overnight nor by 2017 which is when the NRL cap reaches that level either.



It's supposed to be three or four clubs who are not paying to the cap currently not most of them and so I really don't think making it a condition of membership of SL that they do unrealistic. I also have no idea what you mean by the 50% rule being irrelevant and how that means they could not afford it (whatever it is) because the 50% rule limits what you pay to 50% of turn over or to the salary cap [iwhichever is the lower.[/i It doesn't mean you spend 50% of whatever the cap is nor would it mean Leeds could spend £6m if the cap were raised to £2m. They could spend £2m. Which by the way is just less then what Wigan were spending when the flat rate cap came in!!



Wrong. We need chairmen and administrators who recognise we need to work to increase the amount of money coming into the game so we can increase the cap. Not come out with statements like why would we want to pay more then we are now. That is what the debate is about and no one is suggesting Wigan or any other club could fund a salary cap of £4.6m now.

there is a false dichotomy which often arises with the SC which is that we either raise the cap, or keep it as it is.

People often seem to skip that there isnt necessarily a debate over increasing the cap, there is also a debate over improving the cap.

Id go back to the fundamental problem with the current SC, that is: The same people who are deciding on the cap are the ones with a vested interest in keeping low. That is wrong.

But that is how SL works, who voted for franchising etc the same turkeys protecting themselves here