we will see clubs still go bump even with the cap in place.
if they dont employ the names to bring in the fans the revenue naturally declines as the results do also !!!
cap is not a club saver

I think your all missing a big point. Higher wages is a waste of money in the sense that it doesn't improve the quality of the game. The same players play the game, in business you would invest in a mass marketing campaign with a big budget for example but the rfl ensure the money is for development off the pitch so you invest in youth and community projects.

Without the cap there would only be Wigan, Bradford, Saints and Leeds (as was originally the case) with lots of cannon fodder in the other spots. Perhaps Warrington would be there because of their backer. The salary cap is a complex organism going hand-in-hand with the "quota" system and the franchise mechanism with the intention of helping us to have nore competition and develop home-grown talent. For their long-term ambition in this, I think the RL has to be applauded. It is clear that, at first there may be a dip in the overall quality because of the lack og British talent around but, as time has passed, we have seen quite a few starlets coming through the ranks at many clubs. Even now, the people with the financila backers can lure players away (a la Warrington and Salford). I personally am not interested in going back to the days when teams were made up almost entirely of overseas players with the top teams being able to afford the best and the rest only affording journeymen. The Football Premier League is a great example of how that works - a load of foreign players taking all the cash handed out by billionaire benefactors, four or five clubs with all of the money (but not from being viable businesses) buying up all of the youngsters and discarding them if they don't make the grade and sharing out the trophies between them year after year after year. At least the RL are attempting to give clubs the opportunity to compete.

Good post.

And to address the OP surely once the players are on the island all their accounts are then offshore ?

Sorry but I don't agree with you saying top clubs stagnate, the cap works in many differing ways and is definitely beneficial for the sport as a whole.
The cap is still relatively in its infancy and it is to give a level playing field for all clubs, top clubs dont stagnate they HAVE even more incentive to develop local youngsters because of the cap.
The cap forces coaches to use tactical nous and development of players (young & old) to better the opposition rather than just waving huge salaries at the top players to lure them to a club (which is what we had with Wigan previously)
IF we want to see a more even competition in the future (& this year has been great with Crusaders improving imeasurably) & certainly fewer & fewer drubbings (as 40/50/60+ wins on a regular basis isn't all that to watch as a contest even if it is us winning) then a set cap is the way to go.
Your analogy is incorrect anyhow in relation to how the cap works.

Yeah, what he said, I didn't plagiarise your piece btw

Agree with that but I do think that clubs that trade in the black should be rewarded with a larger cap than those who don't, that would then encourage a few clubs that are losing money and seem to be content to do so like Huddersfiled, Salford and Wakey to get their houses in order!

How many businesses can alienate their customers and still expect them to come back??

(Not including KC)



What a stupid comment. Sports are only businesses because of the thousands of fans that are prepared to part with their hard earned. If it wasn't for the love of the sport there would be no business. The vast majority of sport fans become disillusioned with clubs when they are seen as only a business that cares not for the fans.

Yes, you want your club to be run well (like a business would be).

Also, if so why are Hull the only club in SL run like a business??

if its not a business then where do the profits go to??
a trust fund for retired players
if it is designed to make a prifit then it is a business in any guise you care to make it!!
but thanks for the insult , well done!!

Yes, I see no reason is principle why the cap couldn't be banded in some (limited) way. The main virtue of the current system is it's simplicity.

One problem though is that if a club isn't operating at the cap or the most obvious way to get their house in order is cutting the wage bill, a larger cap isn't much of an incentive. And if somebody is content to lose money - is that a problem? It's their money and the cap stops anybody distorting the competition too much.

Any business is only a business because of the thousands of customers that are prepared to part with their hard earned cash on their product. Without customers no business can survive.

Are they the only club in SL run like a business? What makes us run more like a business than Salford or Hull KR? Just because we're the most succesful at being a business doesn't mean we're the only one run like it.

And I guess that's where the Franchise system comes in. The "quota", cap and franchise are all inextricably linked.

I'm not sure I agree with allowing some teams in the black more money because then teams like Rovers (and indeed FC) when first promoted and Huddersfield who are striving to improve attendances would potentially be pushed that further back in their efforts to put a successful team on the pitch week in week out.

All the clubs are businesses, but the realistic ambition for some is to make their losses manageable, rather than turn a profit. The pay-off, they hope is in intangibles like glory and excitement. Hull are more of a business because greater emphasis seems to be placed on profitability than at some other clubs. Some owners would be willing and able to accept losses year after year, in return for trophies - that does not seem to be the case for Hull FC. Of course, profits and trophies are in no way mutually exclusive and a sound business doesn't necessarily disadvantage you on the pitch - but it can if, all else being equal, somebody else will dig deeper.

I don't understand what more the club can do though, we spend the full cap?

I don't want to come across as negative about Hull FC - there is much to admire in what has been achieved by them. I'm going to use Warrington and Saints as comparators and that is setting the bar high.

Would Hull pay a big transfer fee for a young player like Myler? It doesn't have to be Myler, if you don't rate him - the point is paying a premium for top young talent.
Would Hull pay whatever it took to get a coach like Tony Smith? Again, it doesn't have to be Smith.
Do Hull spend as much as Saints developing young players, with all the associated benefits that success in this area brings?

I suspect the answers to all three are 'no'. I'm least certain about the last, but a 'yes' would beg plenty of other questions. If they are all 'no', there is nothing wrong with that - there is great value in prudent sustainability. But, it gives clubs like Saints and Wire a competitive advantage from a sports POV.