Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I saw something on this forum not so long ago to suggest that the Salary Cap we have at the moment may sometime be removed.
If that happened, would that lead to a less competitive Rugby Premiership or not effect it at all? Would just a few clubs like Tigers dominate? Obviously we would all like to see Tigers win the Premiership just about every year! :D :D :D :D But would it be good for the competitition to have a Chelsea-like situation in rugby? Particularly if one or two clubs tapped up all the best players?
On the positive side, we would be able to buy better players then we seem to do at the moment although some prefer that we develop rather then go out and buy.
The salary cap is a good thing. In American Football the cap means that more teams can compete. The other good thing about American Football is the draft, where the worst team gets to pick th ebest new player coming through. This is good for the game. In football, there are only 3 teams that could realistically win the league and, if my memory serves me correctly, the 4th place team last season was closer on points to relegation than to Chelsea. Keep the salary cap - yes. If it were increased then clubs could get more players in, but it would also lead to some players increasing their wage demands. Solution - increase salary cap but put a cap on individual player's salaries. Would probably lead to outcry from players.
I think the cap should be as a percentage of turnover like it is in the lower divisions of the football league. That way those that have deservedly earned more money can spend it. Wasn't it only ever in place to stop clubs outspending their means in the first place? If it was as a percentage they still wouldn't be able to.
As we are at the moment the club with potentially the highest turnover, then we could end up being able to spend more money on certain players then others do. Even Quins!
The thing that gets me about the salary cap is when the RFU are paying half a players wages. I.e. Andy Farrel at Saracens. How does that work with the salary cap then?
the post stating each club can have a salary cap on the percentage of turnover is actually used in the french top 14. it does make sense and i personally think is a very good idea. but then there is also the argument of the biggest teams like tigers, northampton, gloucester etc will only win the league but it hink now and from especially this season perhaps apart from newcastle and bristol and worcester anybody can beat anybody which is very encouraging. i think the rfu and premier league association should take a very hard look at this and get the english clubs competing with the french clubs on a much higher level.
i agree that all the clubs in euorpe should be treated the same way. in frnace they are being able o buy better players. in the heinken cup look at the amount of french teams gettin to the finals and semis over the past years. the french teams has an advantage over the other teams in the competition
Have we not learnt any lessons from watching what has happened in football? I am sure I read somewhere that they are debating the instigation of a salary cap in that game to try and redress the problems that too much money has caused. We have a superbly competititive league in the UK where on their day any of the teams could beat any of the others. Surely that has to be prized. The lack of salary cap has meant dominace of the top teams, more pepole support them because they are top and so they can afford to spend more and the gap widens. Good as a business, but bad for a sport.
With regards to Europe, of course we want it to be fairer for us to compete against the likes of France. But surely the answer is not to ruin the competitveness of all other leagues but to try and address the issue with the French clubs. I don't know how, but does no tthe IRB have some say?
One of the problems with football is that you have always had certain clubs like Man U and now Chelsea who can afford to pay huge wages to players and snap up the best players in the market without anyone else having a chance. Particularly now with Chelsea and Abramovich as the latter has so much money to put into the pot that Chelsea can snap up anyone they like and leave the rest to fight over the scraps. Not all their big money transfers have been succesful though as the odd player they have had to sell for less money later. Such as Duff. Mind you they did do one good thing - they sold him for less then they could have got for him so he didn't go to Spurs!
I agree that the salary cap has made English rugby more competitive but we would still want a bit more money into the pot to entice bigger names like the French clubs do! How do we make a level field with our Gaullic counterparts? Not entirely sure!
Now this is an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.
There seems to be 4 major issues with the salary cap.
1: The Salary Cap keeps the 12 premiership clubs solvent. It's not that long ago that Bristol, and Rotherham nearly went out of business. These were clear cases of clubs being managed badly. The salary cap should help stop this from happening. Therfore it seems like a good idea.
2: The Salary Cap keeps the premiership interesting. Well in some respects it does, Wasps and Leicester have won the 7 of the last nine premierships, so you might argue the same clubs win the league, but you do get the sutuation during the dark winter months when most teams can beat each other, although that maybe more to do with internationals being away and the paying premiership supporter being short changed. Therfore in this case the salary cap is neither a good nor a bad thing.
3: The salary cap means English Clubs are not competitive in Europe. Wasps were the last team to win the H cup. and that was just by the skin of there teeth. Since then it has been a bit of French Contest, bar last years heroics from Munster. We all know Stade and CLemont, etc have wage bills that are double ours. Does the length of the English season and the fact that we play the premiership during the internationals mean that we have to have massive squads of average players because that's all we can afford? If we are honest Tigers have not looked like winning in Europe for a while, and neither have any other English teams. Has the premiership become an average league for average players?
4: The salary cap has stopped "Hollywood" players coming to the premiership. When did we see the last BIG name player come to the premiership. Josh Kronfeld? Other may remember more, but he's the last big name we signed. The salary cap stops clubs signing players like Joel Stransky, Pinear, Lynagh, the sorts of players who came over added to premiership and gave it a real buzz.
It's a long post this, and I don't really know the answer, but I am sure the premiership which most thought was the strongest club comp in the world 5-7 years ago is now behind top14 in france, the the NPC and Currie cup.
Would a higher salary cap make a difference, I beleive it would.
Very interetsing compromise JB. Higher salary cap could be a big help. It would have to be one that the lower clubs could afford and be worth doing to help international competition. Maybe the RFU could see their way to helping out the less "well off" premiership sides? I think pigs may fly first, but it's a thought.
I still wonder if there is anything that a body such as the IRB could have any influence on France to make them closer allied to the rest of Europe rather than the rest of Europe having to spend more to compete with them.
JB wrote:Now this is an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it.
There seems to be 4 major issues with the salary cap.
1: The Salary Cap keeps the 12 premiership clubs solvent. It's not that long ago that Bristol, and Rotherham nearly went out of business. These were clear cases of clubs being managed badly. The salary cap should help stop this from happening. Therfore it seems like a good idea. - Agreed
2: The Salary Cap keeps the premiership interesting. Well in some respects it does, Wasps and Leicester have won the 7 of the last nine premierships, so you might argue the same clubs win the league, but you do get the sutuation during the dark winter months when most teams can beat each other, although that maybe more to do with internationals being away and the paying premiership supporter being short changed. Therfore in this case the salary cap is neither a good nor a bad thing. - Agreed. Without a cap there would be a bigger gap between top & bottom, have & have-nots.
3: The salary cap means English Clubs are not competitive in Europe. Wasps were the last team to win the H cup. and that was just by the skin of there teeth. Since then it has been a bit of French Contest, bar last years heroics from Munster. We all know Stade and CLemont, etc have wage bills that are double ours. Does the length of the English season and the fact that we play the premiership during the internationals mean that we have to have massive squads of average players because that's all we can afford? If we are honest Tigers have not looked like winning in Europe for a while, and neither have any other English teams. Has the premiership become an average league for average players? Tigers won the HC twice & Wasps once when restricted by the salary cap. Not too bad a record is it? Maybe the French teams are just better?
4: The salary cap has stopped "Hollywood" players coming to the premiership. When did we see the last BIG name player come to the premiership. Josh Kronfeld? Other may remember more, but he's the last big name we signed. The salary cap stops clubs signing players like Joel Stransky, Pinear, Lynagh, the sorts of players who came over added to premiership and gave it a real buzz. Tigers may not have signed a "big name" recently but then the club never had a history of doing so before him either! Carlos Spencer? Justin Marshall? No big signings to the Premiership since Kronfeld? Get real!
It's a long post this, and I don't really know the answer, but I am sure the premiership which most thought was the strongest club comp in the world 5-7 years ago is now behind top14 in france, the the NPC and Currie cup.
Would a higher salary cap make a difference, I beleive it would.
No, a higher salary cap probably wouldn't make a difference. It would just mean that the same players that are already here would be paid more for doing the same thing. The Premiership may be behind the S14 & possibly the top sides in the Top14 but I honestly believe it's a higher standard of rugby than the Currie Cup & NPC.
I take then Dave you'd leave things as they are then.
I do think the standard in the premiership has lowered in the last 3 years, and Brian Ashton seems to agree with me.
As I said I'm not sure is changing the salary cap is a good thing or not, perhaps a better structured season might be a better place to start, or less games, something else I've not thought of yet.
But would it be good for the competitition to have a Chelsea-like situation in rugby? Particularly if one or two clubs tapped up all the best players?
