Simon Cohen takes a different view.......as do Glaws

[h's dad]

The salary cap shows little signs of slowing down.
£500,000 pa is a bit different to beer tokens!
No idea what the top salary was ten years back but it seems to have spiralled significantly and I believe it will continue.
How long before we see the first £1,000,000 pa wage, can it seriously be afforded!
What could the repercussions be and should it be stopped now before it's allowed to happen, that's what Cohen and Co are attempting to raise awareness of IMO!
I don't expect players to play on the cheap but finances also need to be in place for things such as stadia, grassroots and the ever changing economic climate.
Some clubs are being pushed into a corner IMO as the balance between sensible financial management and the chase for success swings ever to one side, the players themselves and their agents have a very big role to play in that!

£500k will only apply to marquee players and precious few of those (at the moment). I specifically excluded these from any point I am trying to make (although even that pales into insignificance alongside may other sports). I think we are getting a lot of players on the cheap. Obviously the players can/should only earn what the market will bear, it is just that to me there seems to be a certain inequity with other sports/professions. As you said in different words earlier, you pays yer money you takes yer choice. It could be worse, they could be swimmers.

[The Boy Dave]

The salary cap shows little signs of slowing down.
£500,000 pa is a bit different to beer tokens!
No idea what the top salary was ten years back but it seems to have spiralled significantly and I believe it will continue.
How long before we see the first £1,000,000 pa wage, can it seriously be afforded!
What could the repercussions be and should it be stopped now before it's allowed to happen, that's what Cohen and Co are attempting to raise awareness of IMO!
I don't expect players to play on the cheap but finances also need to be in place for things such as stadia, grassroots and the ever changing economic climate.
Some clubs are being pushed into a corner IMO as the balance between sensible financial management and the chase for success swings ever to one side, the players themselves and their agents have a very big role to play in that!

£500k will only apply to marquee players and precious few of those (at the moment). I specifically excluded these from any point I am trying to make (although even that pales into insignificance alongside may other sports). I think we are getting a lot of players on the cheap. Obviously the players can/should only earn what the market will bear, it is just that to me there seems to be a certain inequity with other sports/professions. As you said in different words earlier, you pays yer money you takes yer choice. It could be worse, they could be swimmers.

I think a lot of players have no choice but to be cheap because of how fast the wages are rising at the top, like infrastructure and community projects they will become a target for trimming down to pay for the so called cream.
An individual cap at the top would be a wise move IMO before someone goes belly up, just because football can afford to be obscene doesn't mean that rugby can or even should!

[Sajerj]

I would still like to the see them bring in

1. A minimum senior squad size (45)
2. A minimum contract (100k)
3. A maximum non English qualified limit (15 per squad).

[The Boy Dave]

I would still like to the see them bring in

1. A minimum senior squad size (45)
2. A minimum contract (100k)
3. A maximum non English qualified limit (15 per squad).

Some good simple ideas in that IMO.
Another would be ways of dealing with agents, some solid rules need enforcing IMO whereby situations do not arise where agents are earning a combined salary that is more than some top players.
That's cash going directly out of the salary cap.
I know there are some very modest earning agents who have players interests as a priority particularly helping players get on at the lower end of the scale, and then there are others with purely selfish interests at the other end of the scale.

[h's dad]

I would still like to the see them bring in

1. A minimum senior squad size (45)
2. A minimum contract (100k)
3. A maximum non English qualified limit (15 per squad).

Some good simple ideas in that IMO.
Another would be ways of dealing with agents, some solid rules need enforcing IMO whereby situations do not arise where agents are earning a combined salary that is more than some top players.
That's cash going directly out of the salary cap.
I know there are some very modest earning agents who have players interests as a priority particularly helping players get on at the lower end of the scale, and then there are others with purely selfish interests at the other end of the scale.

I like one and three. Much as I am in favour of fair and decent salaries for professional rugby players I think this is overly prescriptive and really doesn't allow for development players who may sit on the bench twice and get 15 minutes during the season.

I really don't know enough about agents and would like to know more but isn't it the choice of the player? If an agent is really good for his players and has 20 or more professionals clamouring to pay him 10% for his services who are we to argue? Or if, say, mum is the agent and her 30% just happens to minimise a tax bill, who are we to complain (as long as it can be justified to the taxman)? I would have thought agents acting on purely selfish interests would have a relatively short career.

[The Boy Dave]

I would still like to the see them bring in

1. A minimum senior squad size (45)
2. A minimum contract (100k)
3. A maximum non English qualified limit (15 per squad).

Some good simple ideas in that IMO.
Another would be ways of dealing with agents, some solid rules need enforcing IMO whereby situations do not arise where agents are earning a combined salary that is more than some top players.
That's cash going directly out of the salary cap.
I know there are some very modest earning agents who have players interests as a priority particularly helping players get on at the lower end of the scale, and then there are others with purely selfish interests at the other end of the scale.

I like one and three. Much as I am in favour of fair and decent salaries for professional rugby players I think this is overly prescriptive and really doesn't allow for development players who may sit on the bench twice and get 15 minutes during the season.

I really don't know enough about agents and would like to know more but isn't it the choice of the player? If an agent is really good for his players and has 20 or more professionals clamouring to pay him 10% for his services who are we to argue? Or if, say, mum is the agent and her 30% just happens to minimise a tax bill, who are we to complain (as long as it can be justified to the taxman)? I would have thought agents acting on purely selfish interests would have a relatively short career.

You are absolutely right, it's the players choice.
IMO it's still dead money though and more pressure on the cap.
It's also confusing for many players, becomes the norm and before you know it agents are running the show.
In reality 10% of a £400,000 pa player salary is larger than some individual pro players annual salary.
I don't believe that is in players best interests all round where a salary cap exists, maybe the very top but everyone else is cannon fodder.

[h's dad]

<<quote="Sajerj">>I would still like to the see them bring in

1. A minimum senior squad size (45)
2. A minimum contract (100k)
3. A maximum non English qualified limit (15 per squad).<<quote>>

Some good simple ideas in that IMO.
Another would be ways of dealing with agents, some solid rules need enforcing IMO whereby situations do not arise where agents are earning a combined salary that is more than some top players.
That's cash going directly out of the salary cap.
I know there are some very modest earning agents who have players interests as a priority particularly helping players get on at the lower end of the scale, and then there are others with purely selfish interests at the other end of the scale.

I like one and three. Much as I am in favour of fair and decent salaries for professional rugby players I think this is overly prescriptive and really doesn't allow for development players who may sit on the bench twice and get 15 minutes during the season.

I really don't know enough about agents and would like to know more but isn't it the choice of the player? If an agent is really good for his players and has 20 or more professionals clamouring to pay him 10% for his services who are we to argue? Or if, say, mum is the agent and her 30% just happens to minimise a tax bill, who are we to complain (as long as it can be justified to the taxman)? I would have thought agents acting on purely selfish interests would have a relatively short career.

You are absolutely right, it's the players choice.
IMO it's still dead money though and more pressure on the cap.
It's also confusing for many players, becomes the norm and before you know it agents are running the show.
In reality 10% of a £400,000 pa player salary is larger than some individual pro players annual salary.
I don't believe that is in players best interests all round where a salary cap exists, maybe the very top but everyone else is cannon fodder.

If players find it confusing, and I can certainly understand it if they do, they really do need someone to represent them.

I think you're last sentence is particularly interesting. Perhaps the PRL or the RPA should offer a service or guidance? Quite possibly they already do, if not I think perhaps they should.

[The Boy Dave]

h's dad

If players find it confusing, and I can certainly understand it if they do, they really do need someone to represent them.

I think you're last sentence is particularly interesting. Perhaps the PRL or the RPA should offer a service or guidance? Quite possibly they already do, if not I think perhaps they should.

Which also gives some credit to Sajerj's idea 2 along with 1 and 3.

Sajerj

1. A minimum senior squad size (45)
2. A minimum contract (100k)
3. A maximum non English qualified limit (15 per squad).

If not the finished idea then at least the foundation for one!

[Sajerj]

You have to come from the assumption (correctly) that clubs will not control wage inflation at the top end. This is human nature. We know this from every other team sport with increasing incomes.

The idea of a minimum wage / squad side / English qualified, means you would have in any one premiership season 360 contracts at 100,000 pounds for English players.

So you create a very powerful base for English rugby, and a much improved financial pathway to encourage young English rugby players. You also leave plenty of wealth to pay the top performers top money and rightly so.

As the EPS increase release dates, and summer breaks increase, Squad size increases are a must to protect players. I would also reduce the maximum playing time in any one 12 months to 2240 minutes, which equates to 28 full games.

What you eliminate is the wage inflation for players in between. Players that will not reach the elite international level, but have seen their wages spiral upwards on the back of the big names. This money is re allocated to expand the size of squads at the development end.

There is over course no perfect solution, and i understand the clubs would never go down this route. In the end its the RFU that has the wealth, and they will have to get prescriptive if they want to address this issue.