FORUMS > Wigan Warriors > Salary Cap |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1735 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: WARRIORCRAIG "I agree this. Nobody wants to see the cap increase to get to a situation where one or two clubs are dominating with nobody else being able to compete. But stipulations could be added to allow teams to keep their best homegrown players by matching the salaries being offered even if this means it takes them over the limits of the salary cap (if they could afford to.)'"
An idea maybe is for a marquee signning not to count on the cap. You can pay 1 player in your team whatever you can afford . That does not count on the cap. That would gurantee that you keep Sam at Wigan for a few years and allows more money to go to the rest of the sqaud. So you could pay others tempted to go to union a bit more in the hope you persuade them to stay.
Also it will not become a free for all and leave anyside disadvantaged on the cap.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2797 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2008 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
39978_1327618193.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_39978.jpg |
|
| Quote: tank123 "An idea maybe is for a marquee signning not to count on the cap. You can pay 1 player in your team whatever you can afford . That does not count on the cap. That would gurantee that you keep Sam at Wigan for a few years and allows more money to go to the rest of the sqaud. So you could pay others tempted to go to union a bit more in the hope you persuade them to stay.
Also it will not become a free for all and leave anyside disadvantaged on the cap.'"
I'd say it should be for a player(s) who have come through the youth system rather than a "marquee" player. Look at the Storm in Oz where they had players like Cronk, Slater, Smith, Inglis and Folau all come through their youth system and then they broke the salary cap when they tried to pay them what they were worth. Then the sport as a whole ended up losing Folau to ARL.
In my opinion if your youth system has managed to produce so many players that become stars at the top level then you should be allowed to keep them. Developing players from the age of 13/14 in to international players costs alot of time and money, and at the minute the clubs just have to sit back and watch as other clubs/sports come in and poach these players because their hands are tied when it comes to paying them.
If nothing is done then this will soon happen again with Charnley, Sam, Farrell, Mossop, Lomax, Gaskell, Briscoe, Hall etc etc, especially now that England RU will be looking for quick fixes after the recent world cup.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 16269 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
10289_1326111229.png Challenge Cup winners 2009 2010 2012 2019
League Leaders 2011 2016:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_10289.png |
|
| Quote: WARRIORCRAIG "I'd say it should be for a player(s) who have come through the youth system rather than a "marquee" player. Look at the Storm in Oz where they had players like Cronk, Slater, Smith, Inglis and Folau all come through their youth system and then they broke the salary cap when they tried to pay them what they were worth. Then the sport as a whole ended up losing Folau to ARL. '"
Well it is a bit loose to say they came through Melbourne's youth system. Melbourne was their first professional club but those guys are all Queenslanders that came through the Queensland Cup competition and were signed as professionals by Melbourne. But there is a valid point on the Melbourne Storm situation - those were all outstanding players and how come clubs like Brisbane, N Q Cowboys etc did not pick them up as juniors? The Storm's scouting network must have gone looking in Queensland for undiscovered talent and given it a shot in the NRL and they should be rewarded for it. Matt King was also on the outer as well working as a binman because he wasn't on the books of a professional club, and they found him....so the Storm were superb at unearthing talent...
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 146 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2023 | Oct 2023 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
62359_1690379119.jpg Wigan Rugby Club, Best in all the Land
[color=#FF0000:3czsb61p]Marching On to Wembley and Singing with the Band[/color:3czsb61p]
At Home We Are Unbeatable, Away We are Supreme
[color=#FF0000:3czsb61p]So Give Us a Cheer, The Lads are Here[/color:3czsb61p]
The Wigan Rugby Team!!:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_62359.jpg |
|
| What about exemption from the cap for young players considered to be International or future international (England Knights) standard. Could be a solution to keep RU away from the best young talent. They don't throw money at developing or good/average (but useful) players, they come in for the young lads destined for glory.
So make a statement by saying, if you can be good enough to get into the international set-up then you can get that nice big wage packet you are contemplating elsewhere?
EDIT: I see this is already kind of been suggested, I should have read past page two...
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 13938 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
30366_1604259384.jpg [color=#000000:3fno8grb]Rugby Union: When entertainment just isn't your thing. [/color:3fno8grb]:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_30366.jpg |
|
| Quote: Pie Eyed "Why do we need 14?
Why should our sport at the top level be limited by those no-marks, with neither ambition nor foresight at the bottom?
For too long we have allowed the Wakefields and Castlefords of this world dictate what the best teams are allowed to do....
"If the cap is raised, we won't be able to afford it, therefore we're not going to allow you to do it".
Then as soon as Cas are relegated, they start bleating that they should be allowed to spend MORE than the Championship cap, simply because they CAN afford to and "why should we be held back"?
Well guess what - The best of us are being held back by YOU shower of sh|te, and our chairmen are allowing it to happen.
We need a change in the system to reflect what a club can TRULY spend.
If we had something like the UEFA Fair-Play rules, whereby a club had to show either a minimum profit or at least a break-even over say 3 years, that would no longer penalise those of us that have actually marketed our clubs.
It would also penalise clubs with no ambition, no clue and no money.
Tough luck. Work harder.
What is the point in us consistantly improving our attendance figures (other than to show that we can) if we can't spend the increased revenue that it generates?
Please, for the sake of our sport - Stop the tail from wagging the f***ing dog !!!!!
Remove the right of the little clubs to prevent the top ones from moving forward (safely).
If something makes sense and could save/improve our sport - Get it implemented.'"
Amen to that!
This fella has hit the nail on the head completely.
Too many teams in Super League. Not enough money. Not enough talent. Result? Mediocre competition (the same four teams have won the SL) and clubs going bust (Crusaders). Where is talent going to come from if our elite players are being poached from the NRL/Union? And how are we going to produce enough talent to fill those voids left not only by players cherry picked by other rival competitions, but also for the NRL players we can no longer afford? A market Ian Lenagan has described as 'largely dead'. It's not sustainable.
Cut the Super League by two teams. We'd have more money to spread across the clubs and more talent. 14 teams is FAR too many for RL, at the moment. Rugby Union only has 12 teams. We have an increased TV deal and record profits made at the RFL that could be better spread across fewer teams. Say to clubs for the next round of franchises that we're selecting the elite 12 teams in RL from either competition - the rest play in the Championship. Re-introduce promotion/relegation and let's build from there.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 20628 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2009 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2016 | Aug 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
44480_1390845286.jpg It's been fun.:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_44480.jpg |
|
| Restructure, currently top three leagues have a combined number of 35 team
SL- 10 teams
Off this years standings
1.Wire
2.Wigan
3.Saints
4.Hudds
5.Leeds
6.Catalans
7.Hull FC
8.Hull KR
9.Castleford
10.Bradford
Next we have championship 12 sides
1.Salford
2.Quins
3.Wakefield
4.Crusaders(for this discussion forgetting their situation)
6. Featherstone
7. Leigh
8. Batley
9. Sheffield
10. Widnes
11. Halifax
12. Hunslet
But we have a kind of P&R
Next division down has 14 teams.
SL has a top 5 playoff for the GF
6th place stays in the league
7th, 8th, 9th and 10th go in to a relegation playoff 7v10 8v9 winners stay up both losers go in to a game loser goes in to a P&R one off game
Championship have a top 6 playoff winner of that system go in to a P&R game.
If the team isn't good enough to beat the loser of SL then they are not ready but at least they have a chance of going up.
10 team SL means the talent is condensed hopefully creating a better game and creating more interest, then bring in a system in which you have a salary cap as such but it's based on what you earn, so Wigan having the most fans would be able to spend X amount of pounds but are capped on % on income, so if you want to spend more you have to come up with ways of earning more ie marketing, improving facilities, hiring stadium out etc.
You are still capped to some extent but teams like Wigan and Leeds would be able to spend more than Hudds and if Hudds want to spend more then try to make more.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 9565 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2019 | Dec 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
fonds noir/Buzz Lightyear.gif :fonds noir/Buzz Lightyear.gif |
|
| I don't have a problem with the top clubs being able to spend within their means - i.e. a solvency-based salary cap. I also don't have a problem with excluding 3rd party payments to players from the cap. Why shouldn't Sam Tomkins be able to earn a lot extra from advertisers if it helps keep him?
The reality is we're a 4/5 team competition anyway. Keep the rest solvent by all means, but most don't spend anywhere near the cap anyway so it hardly matters what the actual cap level is (some spend 30-40% at best).
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2513 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2010 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2016 | Jan 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
50582_1268771718.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_50582.jpg |
|
| Quote: Horatio Yed "Restructure, currently top three leagues have a combined number of 35 team
SL- 10 teams
Off this years standings
1.Wire
2.Wigan
3.Saints
4.Hudds
5.Leeds
6.Catalans
7.Hull FC
8.Hull KR
9.Castleford
10.Bradford
Next we have championship 12 sides
1.Salford
2.Quins
3.Wakefield
4.Crusaders(for this discussion forgetting their situation)
6. Featherstone
7. Leigh
8. Batley
9. Sheffield
10. Widnes
11. Halifax
12. Hunslet
But we have a kind of P&R
Next division down has 14 teams.
SL has a top 5 playoff for the GF
6th place stays in the league
7th, 8th, 9th and 10th go in to a relegation playoff 7v10 8v9 winners stay up both losers go in to a game loser goes in to a P&R one off game
Championship have a top 6 playoff winner of that system go in to a P&R game.
If the team isn't good enough to beat the loser of SL then they are not ready but at least they have a chance of going up.
10 team SL means the talent is condensed hopefully creating a better game and creating more interest, then bring in a system in which you have a salary cap as such but it's based on what you earn, so Wigan having the most fans would be able to spend X amount of pounds but are capped on % on income, so if you want to spend more you have to come up with ways of earning more ie marketing, improving facilities, hiring stadium out etc.
You are still capped to some extent but teams like Wigan and Leeds would be able to spend more than Hudds and if Hudds want to spend more then try to make more.'"
That would improve the domestic product imo. The playoff systems you mentioned would need a little working out but im sure it can be done. P&L needs to return in some form for me, the teams at the bottom are just hanging around doing jack so other teams should be allowed to have a crack.
|
|
|
|
|
|