RugbyRebels

Tigersman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 9:43 am I don't mind the idea of the cap going up, but would rather it was through academy allowance increases than a outright increase.

jimKRFC wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 9:50 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:05 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:14 pm

Always worth remembering, Exeter signed pretty much everybody up to new 3-year deals when Covid hit, the cap reduced, but those contracts were able to put 25% outside of the cap.
Those come due this summer, so those players would all be being offered a 25% cut; or let go, so that the rest can be paid properly.

Given that allowance, it's basically impossible to judge who's where in relationship to the cap based on ins vs outs.
In sheer numbers, I don't think 4 in, 16 out, is outside of the ordinary (though the number of those who are starters for Ex. surely is; but IMO is explained by the above)

I'd forgotten they'd used that loophole. A lot of the high earners are out the door though, even if a lot of those remaining are now on a position to renegotiate for new contracts it's not a good market to do that unless you want to go to France. Which admittedly quite a few have done. I'm still expecting more signings to be announced by them.

Bristol did as well, we also complicated things by keeping players PL wanted to let go as well...

Bristol never wanted to decrease the cap - so its not a shock that the club want it to go back up. I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

jimKRFC wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 9:50 am I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

Tigersman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:03 am

jimKRFC wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 9:50 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 4:05 pm

I'd forgotten they'd used that loophole. A lot of the high earners are out the door though, even if a lot of those remaining are now on a position to renegotiate for new contracts it's not a good market to do that unless you want to go to France. Which admittedly quite a few have done. I'm still expecting more signings to be announced by them.

Bristol did as well, we also complicated things by keeping players PL wanted to let go as well...

Bristol never wanted to decrease the cap - so its not a shock that the club want it to go back up. I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:12 am

Tigersman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:03 am

jimKRFC wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 9:50 am

Bristol did as well, we also complicated things by keeping players PL wanted to let go as well...

Bristol never wanted to decrease the cap - so its not a shock that the club want it to go back up. I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

If that’s true then rugby is stuffed. How else do you sufficiently grow the game other than with higher quality players. It’s obvs a very small sample size but I would specifically ring Bristol games that were on BT Sport just to watch Piatua, Radradra and Luatua, plus RICH LANE!!! obvs.

Tigersman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:26 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:12 am

Tigersman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:03 am

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

If that’s true then rugby is stuffed. How else do you sufficiently grow the game other than with higher quality players. It’s obvs a very small sample size but I would specifically ring Bristol games that were on BT Sport just to watch Piatua, Radradra and Luatua, plus RICH LANE!!! obvs.

Rugby is stuffed, a sport doesn’t lose 3 top flight teams in under a year if it wasn’t stuffed. I think it’s a fact it’s stuffed now isn’t it?

Your viewing might contribute to increase viewing figures I don’t know how they compare to previous years. But CVC take how much of a cut from the tv deals anyway?

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 2:43 pm Difficult to be reactive in a profession where multiyear contracts are the norm. By the time you realise there’s a problem you’re three years away from tempting players back. Not to mention the bureaucracy required to get the cap lifted.
These clubs went under because of a once in a century (hopefully) pandemic not because they were battling relegation. That’s before you get to the point that it’s difficult to argue Wasps were battling relegation having finished the 21/22 season with nearly double the points of the bottom team and even more difficult to argue LI were battling relegation in fifth.
As always, clubs don’t have to spend to the cap - it is a cap and not a collar.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:47 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 2:43 pm Difficult to be reactive in a profession where multiyear contracts are the norm. By the time you realise there’s a problem you’re three years away from tempting players back. Not to mention the bureaucracy required to get the cap lifted.
These clubs went under because of a once in a century (hopefully) pandemic not because they were battling relegation. That’s before you get to the point that it’s difficult to argue Wasps were battling relegation having finished the 21/22 season with nearly double the points of the bottom team and even more difficult to argue LI were battling relegation in fifth.
As always, clubs don’t have to spend to the cap - it is a cap and not a collar.

Most contracts are for two years so it's not generally the end of the world if they go abroad. For some players it can really push them on, see Mercer. As Which points out there's never been the feared exodus with bankruptcy of clubs being the biggest driver yet and has resulted in the telling loss to England of Marchant and Simmonds. I also agree with Which, Wasps were on unstable footings before they bought the Ricoh on the iffy financing arrangement and LI did seem beholden to their owner keeping investing his own money.

LI and Wasps went under, with a reduced cap. They were both spending up there at the time. If they maintained that level of spending but all the other clubs spent an extra million odd do you think they'd still be up there. Falcons are well known for spending what they can afford and taking the consequences and see where they sit season after season. Not all owners are that responsible.

Tigersman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:35 pm People have been saying that an exodus of English players will leave for a while though and it hasn’t happened yet.

And whilst clubs don’t have to spend to the cap, if you want an entertaining league you want it to be pretty close.

So pick the poison

Personally I think it’s easier to lose some players than some clubs.

and I personally don’t think covid can be blamed for a lot of the clubs going.

Wasps was struggling pre covid finances
Worcester sold themselves to cowboys
Irish sounds like the owner just packed it in

All 3 can happen to most clubs, the lower cap is just currently minimizing risk

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:05 pm Again, clubs don’t have to spend up to the cap.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:53 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:05 pm Again, clubs don’t have to spend up to the cap.

I am generally in agreement with you on most of the points you've made in this thread, but I do disagree on this specific one. Yes, clubs don't *have* to spend up to the cap, but how good are the crowds going to be if they're getting a cuffing each and every week? How many businesses are going to want their name on the shirt of a team who are regularly outclassed? If a team is uncompetitive, they will lose money and, if there is too big of a gulf in wages between rhem and other clubs, they will be uncompetitive.

You mention Newcastle as a lesson of living within their means, but Newcastle still won 6 games last year - enough that they are scrappy underdogs rather than perennial losers (wonder whether that would've been different without the clubVcountry clashes that they generally did well out of though?). If most everyone else in the league gets to spend more money and they can't, does that drop down to 3 games? 2? Maybe none?

The temptation then becomes to maybe spend a little bit more, just to get back to respectability, enough to get the sponsors from stopping chafing. And the clubs above don't want to become them, so they need to spend a bit more too.

Newcastle are getting by on there being a lot of cheap players around right now, some astute buying, the club vs country clashes generally giving them a leg up, and the fact that the cap isn't too far above their budget. Raise the cap and they either have to raise their spending with it, or become a 5 point walkover for the other 9 clubs.

Puja