Salary Cap - Poll

[Frankers]

Some very interesting opinions here, I would say this point has got to be considered for the good of the league.

My second, and most important, reason is that the primary objective of English domestic rugby at the moment has to be sustaining a competitive domestic competition - let's finish learning to walk before we try to sprint after the French. Do we really want a Premiership in which half the matches are pointless walkovers because the bottom half of the table can't compete financially? Or where teams are borrowing unsustainable amounts to try to keep up?

[Hull Fan]

I would keep the salary cap in general but look at excluding players that have come through the academy, so that the wages allocated to those players don't eat into the salary cap.

This would encourage teams to develop academy players and give some flexibility in the salary cap.

[Nailsworthstiger]

The view that I've always held is that a club should only be allowed to spend a certain amount of their annual turnover on wages. That way you wouldn't have clubs going to the wall as they wouldn't be able to spend above their means and the onus is then on the club to increase its own revenue streams so that they can increase their squad size or quality of squad.

I don't see why Tigers should be limited to only spending £4.5m a year if they (hypothetically) pull in a combined sum of £15m a year and their remaining expenditure doesn't exceed the £10.5m gap.

Whether this can be policed sufficiently enough is a different kettle of fish, but I think that it is a reasonable solution.

<prepares to be shot down in flames>

If we went down this route the bigger clubs ie Tigers get bigger and bigger and the smaller clubs ie Exeter remain small. You would then have a situation like in football where only about 4 teams are capable of winning the league. And that is not healthy for any sport.

[old one eye]

I think that in the long term the larger clubs that have the support will break away and form a European super competition. I do not like the idea too much,but i think it will happen.

[Kinoulton]

I still passionately believe that a salary cap applied to any sports clubs shows that they are being run by numpties.

No other discipline in the world of organisations, be they public or private sector, has these ridiculous rules.

You have stakeholders (maybe they have shares or just pay their taxes) and you have custodians in the form of Chairmen, CEOs and FDs, who are answerable to these stakeholders.

If they lose the stakeholders money by making deals that the organisation cannot afford can't afford, then they could go to prison, or they could be banned from ever being a director ever again.

That is a far tougher and more adult approach than inventing a "one size fits all" salary cap.

[Bill W (2)]

That is a far tougher and more adult approach than inventing a "one size fits all" salary cap.

I have sympathy for this approach.

However, when the Business Plan (I think that is what is meant by Brand, Kinny) is based on having a sugar daddy who is perpared to sink a large amount of funds into the club, and that sugar daddy pulls out (see thread on Wasps) the inevitable disaster follows - and that is with a salary cap in place.

[boon]

i would suggest you guys dont overdose on the schadenfruede here, wasps woes might not be good for the league as a whole. we all need strong viable competition to thrive, and if wasps are vulnerable the majority of the other clubs may not be too far off.

i'm not sure whether or not leicestershire is on a drought footing like northants but i'm sure you can still appreciate there is little satisfaction to be had from being one of the bigger fish in a dried up pond.

[Bill W (2)]

i would suggest you guys dont overdose on the schadenfruede here, wasps woes might not be good for the league as a whole. we all need strong viable competition to thrive, and if wasps are vulnerable the majority of the other clubs may not be too far off.

i'm not sure whether or not leicestershire is on a drought footing like northants but i'm sure you can still appreciate there is little satisfaction to be had from being one of the bigger fish in a dried up pond.

Indeed other clubs may well be vulnerable. But the salary cap (IMHO) does not reduce this - my guess is that it is largely neutral, although it may reduce the temptation of sponsors to pour in money to "buy" a top notch squad.

What PRL have to balance is the risk of The Premiership suffering from having too small squads to compete effectively in Europe against the risk of clubs (through, as Kinny rightly maintains, imprudent management and leadership) going belly up.

I have little doubt that Tigers, Saints and Harlequins business plans are robust. Bath and Saffas are totally reliant on having sugar daddies - as are many of the French Clubs.

An earlier poster mentioned the possibility of a European Breakaway. I hope this does not happen. But I agree with him that it is a real possibility likely to be determined by the stance of the Irish (who are very comfortable at the moment) and the Welsh (who are not).

[Kinoulton]

For the long term good of rugby, it needs to get back to the stage where it is more inclusive, and not less. So I think any type of breakaway will be a disaster.

The Welsh experiment of boiling down all those great small-town sides into an exclusive little clique of franchises hasn't done too badly for the national side, but a lot of the grit and passion has disappeared.

And if you list the largest 20 cities in England, the vast majority will never ever, under the current system, host top flight rugby.

This is financial madness.

I'm not saying we should create clubs. The last thing I would want to see is some businessman creating the Oxford Bypasses RFC and shoving them straight into the "Southern Conference" before they've even kicked a ball, but we should have a natural environment whereby a well supported club can grow to its natural size.

I just don't see where false measures like the salary cap come into this.

[Bill W (2)]

For the long term good of rugby, it needs to get back to the stage where it is more inclusive, and not less. So I think any type of breakaway will be a disaster.

The Welsh experiment of boiling down all those great small-town sides into an exclusive little clique of franchises hasn't done too badly for the national side, but a lot of the grit and passion has disappeared.

And if you list the largest 20 cities in England, the vast majority will never ever, under the current system, host top flight rugby.

This is financial madness.

I'm not saying we should create clubs. The last thing I would want to see is some businessman creating the Oxford Bypasses RFC and shoving them straight into the "Southern Conference" before they've even kicked a ball, but we should have a natural environment whereby a well supported club can grow to its natural size.

I just don't see where false measures like the salary cap come into this.

Remember the Andrew Plan Kinny? Tigers and Saints merged to form the "Midlands", Bath and Bristol merged as did Sequins and Sarries (or was in Wasps or all three?). Died an early death (happilly)!

Like you I support Market Forces - although the market sometimes gets it all terribly wrong. And just as FSA fail to adquately "police" the business market so PRL fall short in Rugby.

The Salary Cap exists simply to stop billionaire club owners "buying" a winning squad.

[Smurphswillgetya]

i would suggest you guys dont overdose on the schadenfruede here, wasps woes might not be good for the league as a whole. we all need strong viable competition to thrive, and if wasps are vulnerable the majority of the other clubs may not be too far off.

Boon are you worried that Barwell might ditch Saints?

[boon]

smurphs, if you are still labouring under the impression barwell (either keith or leon) is playing sugar daddy to saints you are about a decade behind the times.

as the only premiership club to make a profit every year over the last decade, including our year one league down, i am confident in saints finances being at least as robust as any other club. i dont think tigers have anything to worry about on that front either but it doesnt help any club in the long run if they dont have healthy competition.

[Bill W (2)]

smurphs, if you are still labouring under the impression barwell (either keith or leon) is playing sugar daddy to saints you are about a decade behind the times.

as the only premiership club to make a profit every year over the last decade, including our year one league down, i am confident in saints finances being at least as robust as any other club. i dont think tigers have anything to worry about on that front either but it doesnt help any club in the long run if they dont have healthy competition.

Bit tetchy their boon!

So should the salary cap be raised further?

Maybe it should be set at the level of revenue from season ticket holders?

[norfolkexpat]

I am not 100% certain of this statement--but apart from a few French Clubs like Stade, Racing and Toulon -- arent the majority are underpinned by their local ''Councils''.???

Up until a couple of years ago, attendances were lower than at Premiership matches, so a simple equation--wher does all the money come from ?

[tig1]

I just don't see where false measures like the salary cap come into this.

Like you I support Market Forces - although the market sometimes gets it all terribly wrong. And just as FSA fail to adquately "police" the business market so PRL fall short in Rugby.

quote]

I disagree with you on this Bill. Markets that are allowed to act freely and without manipulation from a central body or government do not get it wrong.

So in this debate, the salary cap is clearly a maniuplation of the free market. The price of rugby labour is not allowed to be valued correctly.

The problem is that once you go down that route the business model of the industry over time becomes flawed and uncompetetive.

I agree with those posters, that IF there is going to be some sort of restricton then it should be based on turnover.