I am certain IL has played a political game since taking over and has been on a fence mending exercise since day one. It's now very hard for any club or other clubs fans for that matter to criticize Wigan as they could under Mo and DW.

However isn't it mission accomplished on that front? We play by the rules, IL says the right things, is supportive towards the RFL and other chairmen such as Hethrington. We are now squeaky clean.

All this is good but if IL has done this in order to increase Wigan's influence when he is going to use it? The next five years are going to see the NRL salary cap rocket. The player drain problem isn't going to go away but what I read from IL is basically a statement that says Wigan are OK because we can be the top of a poor competition. If he is keeping his powder dry he'd better make sure the war isn't lost before he chooses to act.

Mr Lenegans statements also provide some insight into why we might have lost many of our 'class players' over the last couple of seasons in particular.

This actually flies against the Wigan RLFC 'culture', which is over a century old, of 'only the best will do !'

Unfortunately "the best" can't be accommodated under the cap.

Sums the whole thread up nicely.

And so we come round again to the point IL should be working to raise it, not be saying he is comfortable with it or can work with it. As "the best" can't be accommodated under the cap he clearly can't do the latter in the way many people want so he shouldn't be comfortable with it.

Here are a couple of extracts from an article in today’s Big League magazine discussing the NRL salary cap. These come from David Garnsey who is the Rugby League Players’ Association CEO.

I think they are relevant to this thread and seemed balanced and enlightened to my way of thinking. The second extract is referring to a new feature of the NRL cap structure whereby teams have to spend a certain percentage (believed to be 90%) of the maximum cap as a minimum. I think this is something that would improve the competitiveness of the game over here and call the bluff of those teams potentially dragging the competition down.


[i"By definition the salary cap is a restraint on what players can earn so that is a concern. But on the other side of things there’s obviously an interest in maintaining competitive balance within the competition. That enhances the attractiveness of the game, therefore it attracts sponsors and it attracts fans. It’s all about striking the right balance so the salary cap is not too low based on what the economy of the game is, because then it would be an unreasonable restraint perhaps. But if the cap is at a level which fairly reflects the revenue to which the players are entitled and has some effect in making the game more attractive to the people we are seeking to attract to it, it is defensible."


"The salary cap will increase but just as importantly – if not more importantly – is the imposition of a floor across all player remuneration. There’s an increased focus not just on how much clubs can spend, but what they must spend. A floor compels clubs to provide remuneration to players above a certain level.[/i"

That is far too sensible - would never happen here - the RFL have never seemed to be sure what the salary cap is actually for.

I suspect though that one major difference is that the gap between the clubs (in finance and in ambition) in the NFL is much less than it is in SL, so there is much more good will in the NFL for changes than in SL, sadly there are too many clubs in SL for whom survival is deemed to be success rather than anything loftier.

I have said before it ought to be a criteria of SL membership you can spend to the cap limit. Given ours is so low I don't think that is an unreasonable stance to take.

The NRL also has a minimum player wage which has just gone up to the equivalent of £53K a season. I believe this is for squad players numbered 18-25.

What the quotes you posted also show is there is an acceptance of the fact that the players in Oz are entitled to benefit in proportion to the financial well being of the sport. Basically given the sport is coining it then they accept the players are entitled to benefit with higher wages. Otherwise as the quotes point out the cap ends up acting as a restraint of trade. Over here we seem to have the opposite attitude and get quotes from IL about why would he want to pay more?

I think this illustrates a huge difference in thinking and it isn't just about how much money is available its about recognising the players worth and that top class players bring revenue to the game as they attract higher sponsorship. We seem to be in a way of thinking whereby it is all about how can we manage on £1.6m with players value not being recognised in anything like the same way. They are almost cannon fodder to be paid as little as possible. Paying as little as possible maybe the way of big business but it isn't the way in pro sport and I think from those quotes the Aussies have it taped about what RL being professional means monetarily. I don't think the RFL and SL have a clue in comparison.

Now now Smokey. Don't go spoiling things with facts.

As for the salary cap, I think people are forgetting the practicalities. The NRL salary cap is set to rise to $7m which is around £4.6m. How much profit does Wigan usually make? Can they afford an extra £3m? I know Leeds can't despite being the richest club outside the NRL.

As others have mentioned most clubs can't afford the current cap and even the rich clubs cant afford a much increased cap, so what exactly is the point in massively raising the cap? It's merely encouraging a club to bankrupt itself. The 50% of income rule is irrelevant too, since clubs can't afford it. IIRC with a 50% rule Wigan could spend a cap of around £3.5m, but they can't afford that. Leeds would be allowed to spend around £6m, yet can't afford to.
Introduce a few exemptions for certain players and maybe a small increase of 1/200k is about all that can be done realistically.

We're simply going to have to accept the fact that both Union and the NRL can afford to pay more than we can, as any increase in the cap isn't going to suddenly magic money out of thin air.

I don't think anyone sensible is calling for a massively increased cap as you put it. People are (rightly) concerned that Lenagan has given his approval of not increasing the cap AT ALL! As you say, small increases / exemptions are realistic and should be happening.

If we just give up and don't raise it at all, it'll be curtains for pro RL within 10-15 years.

The blame for all this lies firmly with the RFL and the Super League Chairmen who have made some wholly moronic business decisions taking this sport forward. The worst one has to be giving away the Super League sponsorship for free to Stobart to have a few RL players on the backs of lorries. We now don't have a title sponsor at all and is it any wonder? Could you imagine Rugby Union officials making a similar decision? Incidentally Rugby Union signed a four year £20 million deal with Aviva. We gave our name out for free to Stobart. The previous Engage deal was (reportedly) worth £1.2 million a year.

How is it that a sport that pulls in better viewing figures than Rugby Union ends up with a £90 million over five years (approx £18 million a year) tv deal and RU are able to negotiate a £152 million tv deal over four years (approx 38 million a year)?

It is situations like the ones mentioned that is crippling our sport.

We are in a difficult situation. Our salary cap is not going up anytime soon. The wages for a professional RL player deteriorate every year. The fact that in sixteen years we have not kept RL wages in line with inflation is ridiculous.

The key decisions our administrators make for our game in the next few years are of the most important in our history IMO. If we continue to make poor business decisions as a game that does not encourage growth in line with other competitions then I cannot see any other result other than us becoming a sub-standard competition that has to revert back to being semi-professional.

I think Leeds and possibly Wigan probably could afford to spend quite a bit more on players' wages - albeit maybe not an extra £3m. But it would just involve gutting all the community and non-on field activities which both clubs plough money into which have no obvious direct business benefit.

No one has forgetten anything because no one is suggesting they can. The NRL clubs can't finance a $7m cap off their [uown[/u turnover/profits either.

They are financing it off the back of TV money which has resulted in a grant of $7.1m a year.

I am sure there are NRL clubs that are as rich as Leeds when you look at their own income streams and revenues but they could not afford to pay to the 2013 cap of $5.85m without the huge cash injection the sport over there gets so it is disingenuous to imply our clubs are just not rich enough to do so when the NRL clubs aren't either.

It's all about external funding and whether or not we can get it and if the RFL and chairmen like IL are seeking to do so.

No one is suggesting the cap be raised to £4.6m overnight nor by 2017 which is when the NRL cap reaches that level either.



It's supposed to be three or four clubs who are not paying to the cap currently not most of them and so I really don't think making it a condition of membership of SL that they do unrealistic. I also have no idea what you mean by the 50% rule being irrelevant and how that means they could not afford it (whatever it is) because the 50% rule limits what you pay to 50% of turn over or to the salary cap [iwhichever is the lower.[/i It doesn't mean you spend 50% of whatever the cap is nor would it mean Leeds could spend £6m if the cap were raised to £2m. They could spend £2m. Which by the way is just less then what Wigan were spending when the flat rate cap came in!!



Wrong. We need chairmen and administrators who recognise we need to work to increase the amount of money coming into the game so we can increase the cap. Not come out with statements like why would we want to pay more then we are now. That is what the debate is about and no one is suggesting Wigan or any other club could fund a salary cap of £4.6m now.

there is a false dichotomy which often arises with the SC which is that we either raise the cap, or keep it as it is.

People often seem to skip that there isnt necessarily a debate over increasing the cap, there is also a debate over improving the cap.

Id go back to the fundamental problem with the current SC, that is: The same people who are deciding on the cap are the ones with a vested interest in keeping low. That is wrong.

But that is how SL works, who voted for franchising etc the same turkeys protecting themselves here

True to some extent, but they still get massively bigger average crowds than SL does - the NRL average for all clubs was 16.5k last year, which is on a par with Wigan's, but way ahead of eveyone else's (SL average was less than 10k).

No, it isnt. I have no problem with clubs running their business's as they see fit. I have no problem with them being involved only in competitions they want to be involved in. I do have a problem with them clubbing together to limit the earning potential of players.

Quote ="cadoo"The blame for all this lies firmly with the RFL and the Super League Chairmen who have made some wholly moronic business decisions taking this sport forward. The worst one has to be giving away the Super League sponsorship for free to Stobart to have a few RL players on the backs of lorries. We now don't have a title sponsor at all and is it any wonder? Could you imagine Rugby Union officials making a similar decision? Incidentally Rugby Union signed a four year £20 million deal with Aviva. We gave our name out for free to Stobart. The previous Engage deal was (reportedly) worth £1.2 million a year. How is it that a sport that pulls in better viewing figures than Rugby Union ends up with a £90 million over five years (approx £18 million a year) tv deal and RU are able to negotiate a £152 million tv deal over four years (approx 38 million a year)? It is situations like the ones mentioned that is crippling our sport. We are in a difficult situation. Our salary cap is not going up anytime soon. The wages for a professional RL player deteriorate every year. The fact that in sixteen years we have not kept RL wages in line with inflation is ridiculous. The key decisions our administrators make for our game in the next few years are of the most important in our history IMO. If we continue to make poor business decisions as a game that does not encourage growth in line with other competitions then I cannot see any other result other than us becoming a sub-standard competition that has to revert back to being semi-professional.'" the new superleague tv deal is £23m per year (the rfl released a document, now gone) see posts 12,15 and 16 on this thread forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1699938 as for sponsorship RU just has a different type of market and so can attract larger sponsorship. agree that the stobart deal was a disaster. the new TV deal for RU with bt is only about £18/19m per year for the domestic game. the rest (upto £152m for domestic and European) will come down to what European competition is in place. there is a disagreement going on regarding sky/bt/rfu and other nations

Quote ="cadoo"The blame for all this lies firmly with the RFL and the Super League Chairmen who have made some wholly moronic business decisions taking this sport forward. The worst one has to be giving away the Super League sponsorship for free to Stobart to have a few RL players on the backs of lorries. We now don't have a title sponsor at all and is it any wonder? Could you imagine Rugby Union officials making a similar decision? Incidentally Rugby Union signed a four year £20 million deal with Aviva. We gave our name out for free to Stobart. The previous Engage deal was (reportedly) worth £1.2 million a year. How is it that a sport that pulls in better viewing figures than Rugby Union ends up with a £90 million over five years (approx £18 million a year) tv deal and RU are able to negotiate a £152 million tv deal over four years (approx 38 million a year)? It is situations like the ones mentioned that is crippling our sport. We are in a difficult situation. Our salary cap is not going up anytime soon. The wages for a professional RL player deteriorate every year. The fact that in sixteen years we have not kept RL wages in line with inflation is ridiculous. The key decisions our administrators make for our game in the next few years are of the most important in our history IMO. If we continue to make poor business decisions as a game that does not encourage growth in line with other competitions then I cannot see any other result other than us becoming a sub-standard competition that has to revert back to being semi-professional.'" the new superleague tv deal is £23m per year (the rfl released a document, now gone) see posts 12,15 and 16 on this thread forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1699938 as for sponsorship RU just has a different type of market and so can attract larger sponsorship. agree that the stobart deal was a disaster. the new TV deal for RU with bt is only about £18/19m per year for the domestic game. the rest (upto £152m for domestic and European) will come down to what European competition is in place. there is a disagreement going on regarding sky/bt/rfu and other nations

Doesn't matter. Their wage bill is covered completely by the grant they get not by the revenue they generate. I am sure they make use of whatever revenue they generate themselves but if they were watched by an SL average gate they could still pay to their cap.

On the way home from the Wigan-Salford game tonight I put Radio Manc on in the car to hear Koukash take the virtually opposite view to IL. He actually said in plain English he is going to break the cap if it is not going to be raised!

His motivation was basically if you pay peanuts you get donkey's so why would blue chip sponsors want to put money into RL in the UK when all the best players are not here?

This is the exact opposite of IL's view of being OK with the cap as it is and asking why raise it? Koukash can see why it needs to be raised (well from his point of view scrapped).

Seems to me Koukash despite daft bids for players like Sam is the kind of bomb up the backside RL hasn't had since Mo was around. I bet IL isn't happy because without a cash injection from the likes of TV money I doubt he could (or wants) to finance a much bigger wage bill whereas Koukash is plainly willing to do so.

Mind you I don't think Koukash wants to do this for ever. I think he sees raising the cap or scrapping it as a way to attract and keep the top players here so the sport can get increased sponsorship so he doesn't have to keep funding it.

As the Chinese philosopher once said; "May you live in interesting times".

With the failed salary cap effectively keeping players wages down for 15 years. I cannot help but feel for our quality players.

Larger viewing figures mean nothing, it's the value of each individual doing the viewing. I'd guess there's a lot more BMW and Range Rover adverts during union games and a lot more bingo and Iceland adverts for us council estate dwelling northern oiks for league.

But that's how your preferred system works, they club together for their benefit that's what franchising is and a low cap also

No it isnt. If you arent smart enough to work out the difference (having been told it) you are beyond help

I came across these couple of articles from years ago which really shows how much the game has been held back by the salary cap and there are a few comments from Lindsay and Whelan which are still more than relevant today. Also note the contrast with Lenegans comments:

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-63257/Rugby-Union-welcome-Warriors-win-fans.html[/url

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-62747/Lindsay-calls-end-salary-capping.html[/url

[iWhelan insisted he needs to rescue the situation rather than allow his club to be reduced to a mediocre outfit.

Dave Whelan, Wigan's owner, fears that league, mainly because of salary cap restrictions, will be unable to stop union clubs, who have no such constraints, plundering the best talent and lowering league standards.

Whelan added: 'Rugby league seem intent on bringing the standards down and we are going to fight like hell against it.

'We are not going to let this club sink to the level of the bottom league clubs and the Northern Ford Premiership. It is much better if we go and play the likes of Leicester and Saracens.'

Now former Super League and RFL supremo Lindsay wants the salary cap abolished altogether to aid league's fight in the 'poaching war' against rugby union.

'We are fighting rugby union who are trying to sign the backbone of our Great Britain side,' said Lindsay last night.

'With the salary cap in place, it is like fighting with both arms tied behind your back. We should revise our thinking in the light of the considerable offers being made to our players.[/i

Now get beyond the Wigan to Union nonsense and there are an awful lot of good points. All of the same problems which existed over a decade ago exist now but they are even more so with the additional threat from NRL clubs. Have Lindsay and Whelan also proven to be right with the lowering of standards and exodus of players to Union (and now the NRL)? The lower clubs have, on the whole, made absolutely no progress and the top clubs have been dragged down to their level rather than the other way around.

What I found most interesting though is the figures. The year before the salary cap came in Wigan had spent £3.2m on players' salaries. When the salary cap came in Wigan were given special dispensation for a salary cap of £2.3million, despite other Super League clubs being bound to £1.8m, as they could not get below this amount due to existing player contracts. At this time clubs only received £650,000 a year from Sky, compared to £1.2 million now. So all in all despite every Super League club getting an extra £550,000 a year we now have a salary cap which is actually less in absolute terms than it was when it was first introduced, never mind taking into account inflation, and this is also despite greatly increased attendances and much higher ticket prices.

In 2001 Wigan spent £3.2m on players' salaries which is the equivalent of £4.54m today once you factor in inflation, if you factor in clubs now getting an additional £550,000 a year from Sky and they could be spending £5m+. Even when the cap first came in at £1.8m that would be £2.5m in todays money, again factor in the increase in Sky money and we should be looking at a cap of around £3m. Instead we have a situation where the cap has decreased drastically in real terms and a cap that means we cannot retain our best players, and even average players in some cases. Can you imagine the situation in another decade if the cap remains the same? Do people really expect it to remain the same in the vain hope that the lower teams get their act together, when they have failed to do so for over a decade despite getting an extra £550,000 in TV money and inflation constantly eroding what they have to pay?

[i'It won't happen unless the RFL look at the salary cap situation immediately. There isn't time to wait for a strategic review'.[/i

Uncle Mo had it weighed up 10 years ago!!