All of whom were prepared to move a big club. Salford aren't a big club yet. They need some average signings first to get the ball rolling and then hopefully get a couple of reasonable names for next season. In the mean time, the structures off the field are far more important. If the area is as apathetic as you suggest then getting SBW in wont help because they won't know who he is, and he won't come anyway. But Mick the development officer who you dismissed so quickly, could have plenty of success in enticing kids to have some fun and play something other than football.

Why?

Why do Salford need to go from rubbish to average to good? Why cant they just go from rubbish to good? What is this extra step gaining them?

Im not dismissing Mick the development officer, but when he is talking to kids and trying to inspire them he wont be using Darrell Griffin as that inspiration. No kid grows up wanting to be a middling prop doing the grunt-work, hell even a middling prop doing the grunt-work doesn’t want to be that. The same as kids grow up wanting to be Wayne Rooney rather than Kevin Davies, kids in RL want to imagine themselves being Benji Marshall, not Darrell Griffin.

It is wrong to say that high-profile signings, in and of themselves, cannot be part of a long term strategy and it is fundamentally wrong to assume that Salford are automatically more sustainable by spending less on wages. Salford spending £1m on wages in front of 2k fans may be less profitable and as such less sustainable than Salford spending £3m on wages in front of 8k fans.

The reason is that the top players won't come to this country let alone to a side with no prospects. You have to try and build your squad up incrementally, so that players being targetted could see the potential of what you are trying to build. You need to get to a place where you are a middling team, but with potential to go to the next level, so that the big players can buy into the vision

They will if you give them money.

I'm not sure they would. I can't see Billy Slater giving up a kangaroos jersey to play for Salford, even for £1m. Even then, the salary cap would not allow it. If it were so easy, why wouldn't other clubs have done it by now. Warrington are the closest, but they were a regular top 6 side before hey had loads of cash

Well yes that is the point. The SC wont let them do it.

Billy Slater might not want to come over, he might, i dont know but the SC stops Salford even asking that quesiton in a realistic way.

I have no doubt that every RL player has their price.

Mick the development officer without a doubt.

The apethetic Manchester public will probably have little or no idea who Billy Slater is. However, get the kids interested in the sport itself, get the parents interested via them and that interest will grow. I have friends who have started attending games every now and again (inlcuding internationals) because their kids started playing junior rugby and because they went via their club. They wouldn't have known who Billy Slater was before their kid started playing and they probably still don't. But they've been to Headingley....and Wembley to watch Rugby league.

I agree to an extent. However, Bullmania did come before the Bulls real successes so it can be done.

The foundations for the success have been the juniors. None of the players you have listed have played in all six of the Grand Final wins. Can you guess which players have done? I'll give you a clue, none of them are Aussies. These Grand final wins were built from the late 1990s early 2000s when the current crop of junuiors all came through. None of the overseas players you mentioned were at the club when the foudnations were laid.

It's also not guarantee that signing Slater will alter Salford's fortunes in any way. What pack will he play behind? Remember, Wally lewis once played for Wakefield and they won nowt, Allan Langer once played for Warrington and they won nowt.

The salary cap is an integral part of the game (and many other, more wealthier games). I see no reason to tinker with it to pander to an impatient wealthy man who has no real understanding of or background in the game.

I don’t know, i remember my first times playing RL were in the park with mates or in the playground at break-time playing touch and pass pretending to be whoever had been the best that weekend. I went on to play for youth sides because of that, im not sure I would have joined a youth RL side if I didn’t know what RL or who played it. Im not saying community development can be ignored at all. Im just saying that the glitz and glamour of the big names makes it a heck of a lot easy to get kids in to it.
But bullmania only peaked when the Bulls were successful. They go hand in hand. One makes the other a lot easier. It is a hell of a lot easier to market a good product well, than to present a sows ear as a silk purse.


Yet all of them had an integral part to play in that success.

Yes leeds put the foundations in place for a successful youth development system, and yes we spent about 5 years building towards the 2004 season. But during that time we didn’t just make do and mend we were paying £350k for Iestyn Harris, making big noises about million pound contracts for Jonah Lomu, bringing in big names like Powell, Clyde, Mullins, Lee Jackson, Barnhill, Mackay, Walker, Vowles.

And there are fans of Wakefield, who are fans of Wakefield even now, because of Wally Lewis, people who heard the noises about the crappy little RL club down the road signing a superstar and challenging the big boys.

That’s the message a superstar gives, that this crappy little Salford, the Salford of relegation and second tier RL, the Salford who haven’t won anything since moses was a lad, the Salford whose best young players left as soon as they could, the Salford of The Willows, the Salford who got beat every week don’t exist anymore. This is new Salford, the ones who are mixing it with the big boys, the ones who are trying to not only challenge but win, the ones where 2nd best isn’t good enough any more, a Salford to be proud of and that is one of Salfords biggest barriers right now.

No amount of careful planning and youth development (as massively important as it is) sends that message. Sadly Mick the development officer isn’t sexy, he doesn’t capture the imagination, he doesn’t get the people going.

The Salary cap isn’t right. I know it isn’t right. It cant be right. The SC hasn’t changed value for over 10 years. In real terms it has gone down by about %30 over that time. So either it was 30% too high 10 years ago, or it is wrong now. If it doesn’t change next year its real terms value will go down again which means it is either too high this year or too low next.

Yes, we need some sort of talent distribution system, yes we need something to stop someone buying up all the talent, and yes we need to try and restrict wage inflation. I don’t get why this structure is always the best structure for that and this figure is always the best figure for diverse businesses in an ever-changing game in an ever-changing environment.

You already knew RL, clearly. If you don't know it how do you know you wanted to emulate?

If the people of Machester are ignorant of it, get the kids in the schools playing it and get them tickets to watch it. I just don't see how Billy Slater means diddly squat to a guy in Burnage who knows nowt about Rugby league. I do see a scenario where his kids comes home from school full of excitement because they played it that day and he has two free tickets for this weekend's game so Dad is nagged into going. Salford don't necessarily have to be the greatest team in history to keep their interest. I was taken as a child in the 70s when Leeds were good but I really showed little interest. I really started taking notice in the early to mid 80s when they were garbage. I've been going ever since.

How many amateur clubs are there in Machester compared to, say, Leeds or Wakefield? We have to build that up (or should I say Koukash has to)

They certainly do go hand in hand but there's no doubt that Bullmania came first and the Bulls were the pioneers of Super League and transformed themselves. It started before the success.

Integral? Not sure about that. Webb played in 3 of 6. Buderus 1 of 6 Mckenna and Bai 1 of 6. You might be able to argue Ali was integral and you can certainly argue Peacock has been integral but none of the others. It's inarguable that McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield and other juniors have been integral.

All of whom served a purpose, none of whom played a part in a championship. By the way, Lomu is an interesting name to throw up. At the time we were throwing money to tempt him we were heading full steam ahead to liquidation and nowhere near winning a championship. Hardly an argument for Koukash to follow suit.

That's rhetoric and I don't believe there is a single fan that goes to Bell Vue now BECAUSE Wally lewis played for them in the 1980s. Some may recall it nostalgically. Most old timers though will probably harp back to an earlier era when Wakefield won trophies with local lads like Don Fox.

It's an attempt to deliver that message via a quick fix but history shows that more often than not, it usually fails. How many trophies have Wakefield won since they attempted to lay the foundations by signing Wally Lewis, how much has their fan base increased and how many times have they been insolvent since?

He does. He gets the kids going. That is the key part. Mick going to their school every week and getting them to play means more to them than the overpaid Aussie they probably haven't heard of who has made not a jot of difference to the fortunes of the team they don't yet care about.

It isn't right as a principle or it isn't right in value. You can argue the latter I suppose but i'd suggest we simply have to be realistic and cut our cloth. IMO, you cannot under any circumstances argue the former coherently. If the Aussies have one, heck, if the NFL has one than Rugby League is not above one.

The biggest sport in the world, soccer doesn't have a cap in any major league anywhere in the world - so that does suggest there are options/alternatives.

The question is how do you get more youngsters playing the game? would more kids want to get involved if Billy Slater was visiting the school every week or if the youth development guy from the Rhinos pitches up?

If the salary cap in a sport is losing pace with inflation it would suggest all is not well. If the cost of attendance is rising faster than the monies paid to those you are paying to watch it begs the question where is the money going? It also suggests - logically - the value of the entertainment on offer must also be decreasing?

The man makes a very valid comment re the relative cost of the Leeds side compared to the Melbourne side - something Herr Lucas sidesteps/ignores in his comparisons. No one side in SL could afford Smith, Slater and Cronk in their team. If we want to be a world class sport we have to be to attract world class talent.

We are a long way away from the biggest sport in the world. I doubt we should be attempting to emulate "scooer" if for no other reason that the vast majority of soccer clubs are insolvent anyway.

Yes, more youngsters playing the game is the key. Development officers acheive that.

All is not well. Things are tough. I'd love our players to earn what soccer players do, or what Australian players do. But we're not soccer, we're not the NRL and we do not have their money.

Soccer maybe insolvent but that doesn't stop people wanting to get involved - look at Arsenal and the bids to buy it.

Gareth, I appreciate your point but is buttoning down the hatches the way to expand the game or do you sometimes need to speculate to accumulate?

Leeds are in a lucky position whereby player's wages are effectively falling compared to income, a situation the CEO would like to see continue - GH has stated he would like an even lower cap.

At the moment we have a sport that is spiralling downwards in - as you said a very tough economic position. To continue as we are will only lead to one thing a lesser product for both TV and paying spectators - something needs to change.

To go back to Arsenal it shows what happens when you are not prepared to invest in the best - Van Persie, Fabregas - you become an also ran - is that what we want for SL?

But that’s where I knew games from, from the stars. I remember being in absolute awe of Garry Schofield being a friends birthday party when I was about 7, I don’t think I had ever even watched a game at that point, it was something my dad watched and my Grandad used to play.

Im working with a guy from Kirkcaldy at the moment, massive football fan, didn’t really know much about RL at all, but he did know who Billy Slater was, and he did know who the Melbourne Storm were, and he took his family to watch the WCC which was every single ones first match.

He does. But that doesn’t discount him doing other things too.

What im sure he will find when trying to expand in to Manchester is just getting peoples attention

Im not sure thats true Bradford were contesting for titles and winning them at the end of the winter era and beginning of the Summer era.

I think Ali was as important as anyone in our success over the last few years. JP is a cornerstone. Webb too, i think unfortunately his last few months being so bad, and Hardaker coming in and doing such a great job will make people forget how good he is.

But we have been extremely lucky to find Mcguire, Burrow and Sinfield, these are special players, there is no more guarantee that even if Salford do everything we did, and follow the masterplan to perfection that they will find a Mcguire Burrow or Sinfield. Is Dr Koukash supposed to just accept a mediocre at best side until he does find them? What if through no fault of their own Salford don’t find a Sinfield, Burrow or Mcguire for 10 years?

Some played in the 98 grand final, some in the 99 challenge cup win and yes they served a purpose for us. As they would for Salford.

I don’t think it is improbable that there are Wakefield fans who first became Wakefield fans because of Wally Lewis. Im not saying employing Wally Lewis gave Wakefield a free pass forever, im saying that it attracted people at first, and those individuals support grew from there.

Wakefield were a basket case long after Wally Lewis left. Look at Warrington as a better example, Joey Johns famously paid for himself in additional sales. Signing big stars like Matt King, Monaghan (both) Morley,
They will hear of them. Very quickly. Kids aren’t dumb, they want to support the biggest teams with the best players

I would argue both. I think the SC in principle, morally is wrong. Every man should be able to sell his labour and skills to the highest bidder, I am fundamentally uncomfortable with a situation where the owners of companys get together and organise a structure whereby they work together to keep wages down. I also think on principle our players are vastly underpaid. However I understand it as a ‘necessary evil’ at the moment which the players have accepted.

My biggest problem with this SC is that it doesn’t cut our cloth accordingly. It is a completely arbitrary number. It has no relation to what the clubs could afford or would be willing to pay. Leeds are turning over £13m, Wakefield about £4m. It cannot be realistic that both Leeds and Wakefield are cutting their cloth accordingly.

Even under your terms where star players visit all the area's schools every week, the signing of big names is a zero-sum game.

Iestyn Harris was mentioned earlier, and, yes, Leeds signing him may have had an effect both on the pitch and in enthusing juniors, and even in attracting another Oldham-born prospect to the club. But it would follow that it had the opposite effect on the Warrington. That's fine for Leeds, but very much neutral for RL in general.

Investing intelligently in development, on the other hand, is no a zero-sum game in that it creates new resources. You could say that, in a limited way, the signing of Billy Slater would do this too, but no Origin-level player is coming to SL regardless of salary cap so it's a pointless argument.

Some good points here.
Just to add Sal does the game have enough money for this "exspansion"?
I'd argue not and whilst the SC remains achievable for clubs like Wakey why widen the gap or give Salford a better advantage than Wakey when they've done their rebuild without as much ££££ as the Salford owner has?
I personally wait with interest at what Barwick brings to the game after his interview last week.
Fwiw i mostly agree with G on this and id also add maybe Mr K would be better served sorting his clubs structure out asap rather than publicity stunts.

Where did speak about expansion? if you mean increased participation as expansion how can the game not afford it? I would agree at Salford he needs to increase revenues - having a better team will help that, to start now and put a structure in place to deliver that - as Leeds found - takes years. Perhaps a dual process as Leeds did with youth development being underpinned by a suitable quality team e.g. Graham Murray and Iestyn Harris, Brad Godden, Richie Blackmore etc.

Offering poorer quality entertainment at higher prices will only lead to one thing - reduced revenues.

Gates across the opening 5 rounds of SL (when compared to the opening 5 rounds in 2012) are down from an aggregate of 313,653 to 289,280.

That averages at 9,505 over 33 games in 2012 compared to 8,508 over 34 games in 2013 - a drop of just over 10%

That is a worry if we say the average price is £10 if you include kids that is £200k lost to the game in 5 weeks in a year we need to be building interest unless we want a repeat of the WC fiasco of 2000.

Why is there only 33 games in 2012? Which two games have been taken out?

Catalans game v Hull was abandoned as well as Leeds missing one fixture for the WCC

well we know the attendances for those games 7388 and 12272. So the average for the first 5 rounds of last year was slightly higher at 9523.

Though we are still missing a Leeds home game for 2013. Which we dont know what the attendance could be. Could be up, could be down. If its up that gap gets smaller, if its down it gets bigger, if it gets exactly the same, its up to 8646 average for the first 5 rounds.

And we are comparing it to the first 5 rounds of a season where we had two new stadiums opening.

I can see the argument that you have to speculate to accumulate. But a lot of the sport doesn't have the money to speculate with. Letting Salford's new owner boost their marketability by free investment in the on field product might work well at Salford. But what then of the other clubs, lacking a sugar daddy, who then find their own product worsened because they can't remain competitive without a sugar daddy?

The salary cap is designed (and it's a long-term project that the jury is still out on) to create a model where clubs can, with the right management, be competitive at a level of spending that is at least in relation to a plausible income for an RL club. That is not to say that it's easy to generate that income, or that it makes it impossible to mis-manage your finances.

Football has created a model of competition across the major European leagues (to a slightly lesser extent in Germany, but only slightly) that basically says "Get billionaire benefactor or fail." The result is that despite the relatively (i.e. relative to RL) enormous revenues available to football clubs, they're still going bust at an alarming rate.

Football has nearly 100 full time professional clubs in this country, RL has 13 (ish, how many Championship clubs are?), massive crowds and TV income linked to its historical place in our national (and indeed the global) culture. Thus when it loses the odd club to insolvency or the kind of near insolvency that plummets them down to the lowest rungs of the ladder (Leeds, Forest, Luton, Pompey etc)the sport as a whole (thus far) doesn't suffer.

RL doesn't have that luxury, so while they are both sports played on rectangles of grass in front of crowds of paying punters, there is almost nothing of value for RL to take from football's business model, except perhaps from the lessons learned about the consequences of not cutting your coat to suit your cloth.

So while Billy Slater at £1M a year might be a more immediately effective option than Mick the Development Officer on whatever small fraction of that he gets paid, if the game can't sustain that level of investment across a reasonable spectrum of its clubs, it will have to find a less flashy, more sustainable way of doing it that runs more along the lines of "grow business first, spend cash later" rather than "spend cash now, hope business grows later." This is true regardless of how inconvenient Dr Koukhash finds it.

If he can find another 20 or so like-minded wealthy benefactors who will commit to that level of investment for a reasonably long term then it's a conversation worth having. Until then, he needs to put the toys back in the pram and get on with investing in some more gradual wins, following rules that most clubs could live by if they got their a**es in gear.

Gentlemen, an excellent discussion well had. I've read everyone's points and my opinion remains the same so I won't re-hash in a long post.

I'd just like to add how much the exchange of views benefitted from the absence of the usual idiots and trolls.

But the converse would be true aswell wouldnt it. That maintaining the product of other clubs is damaging Salfords product.

But that model is different for every club. Which is the problem, if spending 50% of turnover on players allows some clubs to reach their potential, but we then limit the likes of Leeds to spend only about 15% then we are doing one of two things, either allowing other some clubs to overspend or stopping Leeds or Wigan etc from reaching their potential.

Where is this money to spend later going to come from? If we aren’t spending money where is this growth going to come from?

Yes an unsustainable model is stupid and shouldn’t ever be implemented, but you wont find many business who would argue that spending money on improving their product is an unsustainable model.

Lets look at it from the other side as well. If attendances fall, and continue to fall what then? Do we cut the SC again? If we don’t then we have simply created an environment where what was a ‘conservative’ spending model becomes unsustainable, an environment where revenues are lower but we are having to spend the same just to stand still, where the game is losing money but not growing. If we do then hwo do we stop that becoming a spiral? Where we spend a lower cap, put on an inferior product, get less revenue, have to cut the cap put on an inferior product, get less revenue, have to cut the cap etc?

And its not necessarily just inconvenience for Dr Koukash, there is a very real possibility that he loses more spending the SC than he would be spending a higher amount. It is perfectly possible that the SC stops Salford getting the investment they need to grow, which stops them being sustainable and the SC becomes the actual cause of Salfords financial issues. It is perfectly reasonable to say that not spending on players causes Salford to be unsustainable.

An excellent post - much I agree with some I don't - the idea of a level playing is simply unrealistic - how can a team like Wakefield ever compete in revenue terms with Leeds? What is the incentive for Leeds to continue increasing its revenues if the competition cannot move with it?

Something is morally wrong when any individuals have a ceiling on their earnings - especially one imposed by the very people who have a vested interest in keeping salaries lower. I would have more respect if the CEO's did the same and suggested a maximum salary for a CEO!!

On sugar daddy's Leeds needed to one to stop it going bust and look where they are now - I bet when Leeds signed Iestyn - the equivalent in his day of Tomkins now - you were not crying foul and suggesting Leeds needed to 'put there toys back in their pram' when they handed over the £350k to Warrington. Dr K is now what GH/Caddick was then - needing something quick to get his show back on the road to recovery.