Do you think that we would have the new stadia that we have without the salary cap. More spending on salaries would mean less spending on other areas, including infrastructure. If we hadn't had that investment, it is likely that customers would have drifted assay from the tumbledown stadia that SL clubs had.

I'm assuming you're not being serious.

a focus on performing in the big games removes focus from performing in the little ones. Ergo big side challenging from trophies is worse than they otherwise would be but better in the big games than they otherwise would be, so whilst a smaller side might be more likely to beat them in a league game they aren't any more likely to beat them in the big games. That's why we continue to see less successful clubs challenge during the season but go to prices come play off time.


In my lifetime club rl was comfortably bigger than club RU. In my lifetime RU has made massive in roads in many different countries. In my lifetime NFL in this country has gone from niche interest to selling out massive stadiums numerous times a year. Stagnation isn't grounding ourself in the world as it is. It's settling for what's easy.

We cannot sell ourselves as high quality story telling and expect people to sit up and take notice when our very best quality is leaving to tell those stories elsewhere.

Yes. I don't believe the differential between what we are spending and what we would spend is close to paying for a new stadium.

And again spending on players does not equal less spending elsewhere.

It does when you only have a limited pot of cash to spend.

You appear to be operating in some sort of "Field of Dreams" scenario, whereby if we pay players more the standard will improve and clubs will suddenly be turning punters and potential commercial partners away at the gate. For many reasons, including some of those stated by vbfg, that simply isn't going to happen quickly enough for clubs to sustain that increased spending.

The overwhelming majority of RL clubs are operating on a very tight budget. The choice will literally be between paying the promising young half-back you have an extra £20k or refurbishing the toilets. If you don't recognise that as a reality, have a think back to places like Watersheddings, Derwent Park or even the old version of Craven Park in Hull. Those stadia weren't cr*pholes because the people running them couldn't be bothered, they were in a state of disrepair because the playing budget took first call on the finances.

if you spend more on players, it absolutely does equal less spending elsewhere - at least in the real world of professional RL.

Doncaster, Leigh, Halifax, Featherstone and Newcastle to name a few, are all playing in decent stadiums despite playing in the lower leagues. This is not a valid excuse to keep reducing players wages.

Of those, only Featherstone own the stadium they play in. The rest are tenants.

It's a bit like me moving into Jay-Z's mansion then everyone congratulating me on building it.

The new stadia that we have are largely the result of the "benevolence" of supermarkets who wanted either land or good will, odd relationships with local telecoms companies or the shell an other associated companies of club owners. Very little on that score to do with the cap, and I suspect it is still largely true that money going in to those clubs is going in to pockets rather than bricks and mortar of yesteryear or the concrete and plasticine of today.

(You may recall that Bradford once moved out of Odsal for its redevelopment. Everything was signed and sealed. There was going to be both a Tesco and modern stadium on that site. It took one Stephen Byers to step in to stop this "out of town development", in an area that was then the recipient of an inner city development grant, to stop it from happening. I put more blame on this one act for what happened to Bradford than I do on the undoubted year on year mismanagement of where to spend money that occurred under previous regimes. Still, at least Bradford city centre has never been known as a desolate wasteland at any point since that time. Tesco later built a huge superstore on Great Horton Road instead. Net result to the community: a snarled up ring road.)

But we dont. We have a flexible amount to spend.

Indeed. But I would suggest this is not the case at Leeds which is the issue.

Like spending less on the CEO and the other directors - I doubt the board of directors have a cap on their collective remunerations?

Even the thought of it is funny.

I never said the SC creates interest, just pointing out that if big clubs were allowed to go out and spend whatever they like and it goes wrong then it has a negative knock on effect for the league and the other clubs in the league to lose those teams. Whereas in the world of supermarkets, Morrisons losing a rival or two wouldn't hurt them one bit and this (and other reasons) is why I don't think comparing sports clubs and 'normal' businesses is a really appropriate comparison.

I would be very confident that if we were to lose some of the smaller clubs and concentrate the money and talent in our game that those clubs in that concentrated league would see a congruent increase in fans, sponsorship etc.

And what if we didn't just lose smaller clubs? What if we lost big clubs because they went reckless given the chance?

As Bradford have proven. We cannot legislate against idiocy. The SC cannot, and will not stop, prevent, or make less likely one of the bigger clubs going bust.

The obvious question to ask is how McManus, Lenegan, Caddick, Moran, Koukash etc have made their millions if they cannot be trusted to destroy themselves through wasteful profligacy? I think the idea that those largely self made men, with a combined wealth knocking on for half a billion pounds are only prevented from recklessly destroying their club and chance because the SC has removed that opportunity is a pretty crazy position.

Yeah because all those football clubs that we've seen over the years get themselves into a massive financial mess were owned by guys who won a raffle to own the club and not because they had the money from being successful in other businesses.

Because, as has been said numerous times in the thread already, sport isn't an exact replica for business.

Koukash may be proficient at running a recruitment business. Caddick might have a real nose for what works in the world of construction. Moran is a world class concert promoter. None of those carry with them the emotional attachment of running a professional sports club though.

Do you think David Hughes put millions into propping up London Broncos because he was some sort of idiot who couldn't run a business? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have the money to do so in the first place. People make emotional rather than rational decisions when you put them in charge of a sports club. They put in money where with other businesses they would have walked away. They spend money chasing success that they wouldn't dream of doing in their own business ventures.

The people who were in charge of Wigan when they nearly went bust were successful business people in their own right. Didn't stop them making stupid decisions in pursuit of glory. The idea that the names you've stated wouldn't do anything similar if they could just isn't borne out by experience.

Ahh yes, football, struggling to survive.

Sport isnt a replica, it is business. The idea that these millionaires and billionaires need protecting form their own emotions and the players should suffer for that protection is ridiculous.

Really? So what happened at Leeds RLFC? Were the people running the club such as Alf Davies, Dennis Greenwood and Harry Jepson really such terrible businessmen?

What happened at Elland Road? Bradford City? Portsmouth? Southampton? Leicester City? Hull City? Middlesbrough? Rangers?

The idea that people run their sports clubs exactly the same way that they run their businesses is ridiculous, no matter how much you might ostrich yourself and pretend that they do.

No the sport of football hasn't struggled and clearly no one said that.

Some football clubs clearly have though and you know it but are too stubborn to admit it because it shows the flaw in your argument that successful businessmen wouldn't mess up at a sports club just because they've been successful elsewhere.

yes

pretty much fraud in some cases, appalling business practice in others.

they can run them however they like. Just like their other businesses.

not at all, some football clubs have been run appallingly. Football hasnt. Football has thrived when the good businessmen are allowed to invest.

Football has thrived because of television. Without a TV audience of billions there wouldn't be a single top club financially viable. Nobody invests in football. They spend money they acquired somewhere else on an indulgence - or in the case of the guys who bought Man Utd, they are writing off huge debts from other business ventures gone wrong.