Salary Caps

[Tiglon]

As am I but to maintain itself as a professional sport at anywhere near the levels it currently is, it needs a TV revenue and at least 10 clubs in the league. My concern is that we may fail on one or both of those fronts.

It just needs to spend less on player wages. Simple, right?

Possible but if that then sees and exodus of big players going abroad or a drop in standards or a drop in competitiveness between those willing to spend and those not, it then impacts crowds and sponsor revenue and that causes issues.

Newcastle are showing what happens to clubs who spend what they can afford.

And London Irish, Worcester and Wasps have shown what happens to clubs who spend more than they can afford to. I'd rather be Newcastle.

Newcastle can't afford to spend more because no one in the North East has any interest in rugby union, so they are commercially handicapped. So let them fight it out with a Worcester and/or Wasps, reformed with a sensible, sustainable and realistic business model.

If we can't afford to keep the superstars in our league then so be it. It's utterly ridiculous to keep paying more than we can afford, in the vain hope that one day revenues will inexplicably catch up. They won't - I've been there before in another industry, you can't just keep dreaming that revenue will increase to pay for your existing payroll when your strategy has as much depth as "we'll do marketing, innit".

Speaking of Tigers in isolation, if we can get good crowds with a £5.4m(?) salary cap, then what commercial benefits do we have from increasing it again? I know that's a slightly different part of the topic, but sort of relevant.

Do attendances drop noticeably when international players aren't available? If so, how much? (Rhetorical questions)

Has anyone actually looked into the potential correlation between salaries and revenues, how much the latter might drop if the former does? I doubt it, but why the hell not?

Sorry, bit of a rant, it's not aimed at you, I just get very frustrated by the vague, inconsistent, wishy-washy way in which the business of rugby is run.

[CrumblingTerrace]

It's also worth saying that the opposite situation is happening between England and France in football, where the Premier League is the behemoth and Ligue 1 cannot possibly compete (save for one state-owned club).

[Scott1]

So this TV deal is going to be worth less,what do you think the next one is going to be like after the continuing exodus which has already started? Rugby as we know it over here is in massive trouble, the beginning of the end now I feel. We will end up with Franchises in a B and I League. Make the most of the GP because it wont be around much longer I feel

[mol2]

Wasps an London Irish were overspending but the Worcester situation was more complicated than that.

As has said before the idea of reducing salaries is simplistic when there is a country 20 miles or so away paying higher wages. I think we have to accept this reality and perhaps the RFU too and accept selection of foreign based players or England is going to be weakened significantly.

[Tiglon]

Wasps an London Irish were overspending but the Worcester situation was more complicated than that.

As has said before the idea of reducing salaries is simplistic when there is a country 20 miles or so away paying higher wages. I think we have to accept this reality and perhaps the RFU too and accept selection of foreign based players or England is going to be weakened significantly.

I agree it's a simplistic idea, but sometimes the best ones are. The current situation is a bit like the French Football Federation insisting they will only pick players who play in France, and then the French clubs trying to come close to matching the salaries on offer in the Premier League. Madness.

We do have to accept the reality that we can't compete financially with French clubs, and it's suicide to try. That doesn't have to be the end of the world. If England players are in France, they might miss some training weeks (although Jack Willis says Toulouse were willing to realise him for pretty much any training camps England requested) and they might also improve as players. Who knows, it might actually make the England team stronger. It doesn't seem to be a problem for South Africa.

An alternative to losing England players to French clubs, while still reducing (or at least not increasing) the cap, is to rejig the salary cap rules, and/or eligibility rules to encourage clubs to have fewer overseas stars.

If the 30 top English players are on an average of £400k per year (random figure plucked put of thin air, I suspect the reality is lower), then that's £12m in wages to cover. Or 1.2m per club. Not exactly impossible, is it? And if the odd exception happens, with players like Farrell or Itoje who might be able to get £1m salaries that we genuinely can't afford, let them go to France - it's done wonders for the likes of Russell and many others.

What if the salaries paid to Pollard, Wiese and Esterheizen go to Farrell, Willis and Marchant? We keep saying we can't afford to keep England players in the Premiership, yet we can afford to spend huge sums on overseas players. If we want to keep the top English players in England, it doesn't seem too difficult.