Latest news:

The COML Message Board

The place for discussion, debate and nonsense about Bath Rugby.

Join our new Facebook Group today!

New visitors please read the house rules before posting

Test your prognostications at our Prediction League


Existing Salary Cap and Marquee Players must be retained
Discussion started by Bod (IP Logged), 18 May, 2020 19:23
K-Nut
Bod
18 May, 2020 19:23
Thus argues Landsdown


'To continue to drive the commercial growth of the game, we must keep the best players in the Premiership.
'The right high-profile internationals encourage investment, appeal to new audiences and aid team performance. This challenging period should be used as an opportunity to reflect and explore how we can keep developing rugby through bold, innovative ideas.
'Now is not the time to take a step back and stifle progress.'

I think we'll find a few clubs who will object to this position since they patently do not have the strength in depth. However, I tend to sympathise with the Bears position - Landsdown is very committed to all of his projects under the Bristol Sports umbrella, but he is insistent, in every instance, that every entity stands on its own financial feet.
Maybe a discipline that the rest of the Prem should adopt?

OldMarovian
OldMarovian
18 May, 2020 19:31
Well the majority of PRL members wanted to lower the cap in the coming seasons according to various reports in the papers but were opposed by Bristol, Bath and Exeter Chiefs.

It will be interesting to see if it's a vote that could be forced through on a supermajority? My guess is all three of the above would throw copious legal challenges their way if they tried which tbf is at least partially understandable given legal commitments they would already have.

John Tee
John Tee
18 May, 2020 19:40
I dont really mind but maybe limit marquee...
I think a fair play scheme is of more use, ie you can only spend a percentage of what you earn... so well supported and efficient clubs would be better placed.
That would also achieve collective sustainability for the RPL imv

dcsh
dcsh
18 May, 2020 19:45
Quote:
John Tee
I dont really mind but maybe limit marquee...
I think a fair play scheme is of more use, ie you can only spend a percentage of what you earn... so well supported and efficient clubs would be better placed.
That would also achieve collective sustainability for the RPL imv
I’m told that the way this work with football is that clubs with super rich owners offer incredibly expensive seats (think multiple millions of pounds) for matches that the same very rich owners buy and hey presto the club revenue increases...

John Tee
John Tee
18 May, 2020 19:50
And that is why rugby needs to get a grip because that is fundimentally, 'bent' in my view.

If people can think like that, then what other schemes will they come up with to circumvent rules.
Does not auger well....

DanWiley
DanWiley
18 May, 2020 20:11
Combine the two: have a cap and still say you can't spend beyond your means.

Lansdown just seems upset because he can't buy success.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
18 May, 2020 20:21
Quote:
dcsh
Quote:
John Tee
I dont really mind but maybe limit marquee...
I think a fair play scheme is of more use, ie you can only spend a percentage of what you earn... so well supported and efficient clubs would be better placed.
That would also achieve collective sustainability for the RPL imv
I’m told that the way this work with football is that clubs with super rich owners offer incredibly expensive seats (think multiple millions of pounds) for matches that the same very rich owners buy and hey presto the club revenue increases...

That was the Man city sponsorship issue that got them in trouble...Arsenal sponsorship by Emirates was £90m over 15 years. Man City through Etihad which is owned by the same people as Man city...£400m over 10 years.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

dcsh
dcsh
18 May, 2020 20:30
Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
dcsh
Quote:
John Tee
I dont really mind but maybe limit marquee...
I think a fair play scheme is of more use, ie you can only spend a percentage of what you earn... so well supported and efficient clubs would be better placed.
That would also achieve collective sustainability for the RPL imv
I’m told that the way this work with football is that clubs with super rich owners offer incredibly expensive seats (think multiple millions of pounds) for matches that the same very rich owners buy and hey presto the club revenue increases...

That was the Man city sponsorship issue that got them in trouble...Arsenal sponsorship by Emirates was £90m over 15 years. Man City through Etihad which is owned by the same people as Man city...£400m over 10 years.
Thanks, crazy money, people that rich seem to think they can do as they please and rules are for others.

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
18 May, 2020 20:59
Quote:
dcsh
Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
dcsh
Quote:
John Tee
I dont really mind but maybe limit marquee...
I think a fair play scheme is of more use, ie you can only spend a percentage of what you earn... so well supported and efficient clubs would be better placed.
That would also achieve collective sustainability for the RPL imv
I’m told that the way this work with football is that clubs with super rich owners offer incredibly expensive seats (think multiple millions of pounds) for matches that the same very rich owners buy and hey presto the club revenue increases...

That was the Man city sponsorship issue that got them in trouble...Arsenal sponsorship by Emirates was £90m over 15 years. Man City through Etihad which is owned by the same people as Man city...£400m over 10 years.
Thanks, crazy money, people that rich seem to think they can do as they please and rules are for others.

Breaking news. They can and they are.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Banachek
Banachek
18 May, 2020 23:59
looking at what average players earn , I can't see why we need Marquees outside the cap ?...
What about keeping marque players and the salary cap including marques at 7 mill ...
To do it the clubs need a salary band formulae with a max of two (marquees) players on top salary of £400,000.

So for example - a club could adopt a 4 band formulae , if you want a player to get more someone else has to leave and be replaced by a cheaper player

So you could have 2 players on £400,000 £800,000 ( lets say the marquees)
4 players on ave £250,000 £1,000,000 (regular 1st team/ internationals )
6 players on ave £200,000 £2,000,000 (regular 1st team )
10 players on ave £150,000 £1,500,000 ( occasional 1st team/injury/bench cover )
18 players on ave £94,000 £1,692,000 ( promotion from academy/ young talent)
---------------
Total £6,992,000
Don't know if these figures are unrealistic (looking at stats from rugby pass these are pretty good salaries compared to the typical, excluding marquees) but sound pretty good salaries to me and would work if system adopted by all clubs and no marquee paid more than £400,000 and a max squad of 40 players .
A club could decide not to have players in the top band (or maybe 1) so have even more cash to pay players in the lower bands,any combination as long as no one paid over £400,000.

So firstly don't see why marquees should get ridiculous salaries compared to other players, are they really that much more entertaining and guarantee winning ? Maybe..maybe not Would they leave our shores in droves if they were to know to play in the Prem you will earn a max of 400K ?

Also why do clubs struggle with the cap, the salaries I've given are a higher than I;ve seen when googled. I think its paying marquees silly money which is the biggest problem for sustainability

Just some thoughts..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19/05/2020 00:48 by Banachek.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
19 May, 2020 06:14
I think that most prem squads are bigger than 40 players, considerably so in a couple of cases, so that would skew the maths. The 40 player cap would be a squeeze when you throw in some injuries and international windows I think.

Take this Quins example from this year:

[www.quins.co.uk]



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath
19 May, 2020 07:33
Quote:
DanWiley
Lansdown just seems upset because he can't buy success.

BC is rich and he hasn’t managed any success, Lansdown must be aware of that.

Those wanting financial fair play schemes for rugby are in dreamland if they think it will work. Football is dominated by rich owners and the fair play scheme hasn’t had any real impact on their ability to buy trophies.

DanWiley
DanWiley
19 May, 2020 07:52
The cap stops BC and others just buying the league and it's been pretty effective. I'm not proposing dropping that, I'd reduce it.

However, it's too high. The game isn't sustainable with our current wages. That's a bad thing.

I think we'd be better off showing the game CAN break even before we crank up the costs in the hope of, somehow, making money.

MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath
19 May, 2020 08:01
Probably not a bad idea to reduce the cap, although will mean no English club can compete in Europe though.

Perhaps reduce marquee to 1 player initially then remove altogether. Cap reduced to say £5m

Risk is any reduction in salary could drive playerS abroad. How would we feel if a number of high profile England players decide that family financial security matters more than international caps?

John Tee
John Tee
19 May, 2020 08:07
Quote:
Banachek
looking at what average players earn , I can't see why we need Marquees outside the cap ?...
What about keeping marque players and the salary cap including marques at 7 mill ...
To do it the clubs need a salary band formulae with a max of two (marquees) players on top salary of £400,000.

So for example - a club could adopt a 4 band formulae , if you want a player to get more someone else has to leave and be replaced by a cheaper player

So you could have 2 players on £400,000 £800,000 ( lets say the marquees)
4 players on ave £250,000 £1,000,000 (regular 1st team/ internationals )
6 players on ave £200,000 £2,000,000 (regular 1st team )
10 players on ave £150,000 £1,500,000 ( occasional 1st team/injury/bench cover )
18 players on ave £94,000 £1,692,000 ( promotion from academy/ young talent)
---------------
Total £6,992,000
Don't know if these figures are unrealistic (looking at stats from rugby pass these are pretty good salaries compared to the typical, excluding marquees) but sound pretty good salaries to me and would work if system adopted by all clubs and no marquee paid more than £400,000 and a max squad of 40 players .
A club could decide not to have players in the top band (or maybe 1) so have even more cash to pay players in the lower bands,any combination as long as no one paid over £400,000.

So firstly don't see why marquees should get ridiculous salaries compared to other players, are they really that much more entertaining and guarantee winning ? Maybe..maybe not Would they leave our shores in droves if they were to know to play in the Prem you will earn a max of 400K ?

Also why do clubs struggle with the cap, the salaries I've given are a higher than I;ve seen when googled. I think its paying marquees silly money which is the biggest problem for sustainability

Just some thoughts..

On those figures it is no wonder people are over cap..
A club might not have too many players over 400k, but I'd think most internationals would be 250 plus.

I think a maquee player is going to be around 650/700 so I'd cap that combined as 1.2m ish.
But then again i havent got a problem with 8m in total, for example.

No one is going to like reducing wages, least of all RFU, because they could lose players.

I think the elephant in the room in regards to some sort of reform and sanction is the RFU which is why i also think not much will change.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
19 May, 2020 08:19
Cap reductions / marquee removals would take 2 - 3 years to work through the system anyway so its no quick fix for those currently really in trouble.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

Banachek
Banachek
19 May, 2020 08:28
Quote:
BathMatt53
I think that most prem squads are bigger than 40 players, considerably so in a couple of cases, so that would skew the maths. The 40 player cap would be a squeeze when you throw in some injuries and international windows I think.
Take this Quins example from this year:

[www.quins.co.uk]

Wow ! Can't believe the size of the squads, from 51 at London Irish to 64 at Wasps, including senior academy players. Bath have 63 players on the roster for 19/20 ,second to Wasps (from rugbypass). Yep that makes a big difference to salary costs.
But doesn't that mean even more reason for clubs to think about capping marquee salaries and use that money to pay solid experienced players in the lower wage bracket who can do a good job at prem level when the club is hit by a rash of injuries ? I'm just a bit uncomfortable with a very few players earning 2-4 or maybe 5 times other players I'd guess in a few cases, when clubs are financially unsustainable without a sugar daddy to keep it going. .

Sarriebone
Sarriebone
19 May, 2020 12:04
Quote:
Banachek
Quote:
BathMatt53
I think that most prem squads are bigger than 40 players, considerably so in a couple of cases, so that would skew the maths. The 40 player cap would be a squeeze when you throw in some injuries and international windows I think.
Take this Quins example from this year:

[www.quins.co.uk]

Wow ! Can't believe the size of the squads, from 51 at London Irish to 64 at Wasps, including senior academy players. Bath have 63 players on the roster for 19/20 ,second to Wasps (from rugbypass). Yep that makes a big difference to salary costs.
But doesn't that mean even more reason for clubs to think about capping marquee salaries and use that money to pay solid experienced players in the lower wage bracket who can do a good job at prem level when the club is hit by a rash of injuries ? I'm just a bit uncomfortable with a very few players earning 2-4 or maybe 5 times other players I'd guess in a few cases, when clubs are financially unsustainable without a sugar daddy to keep it going. .

From the various teams' websites their squads are:
Bath: 48
Bristol: 47
Chiefs: 67
Harlequins: 47
Gloucester: 40
Tigers: 48
Irish: 44
Saints: 54
Sale: 33
Saracens: 41
Wasps: 45
Warriors: 45

Chiefs and Northampton I believe include their senior academy players on their squad pages



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19/05/2020 12:43 by Sarriebone.

DanWiley
DanWiley
19 May, 2020 12:21
ouch, Sale. I'm a fan of the smaller squad (yes with plenty of caveats), but even I'm thinking, pretty much, two players per position is quite trim.

dcsh
dcsh
19 May, 2020 12:46
If that Sale figure is correct and they are spending up to the cap as reported there are some big salaries there! So one can see why they are managing to sign players.

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
19 May, 2020 13:22
Our squad is more than 48 as you have to include academy who do play first team rugby. I must get the squad up to date but I reckon we have around 65 with the academy.



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none

Sarriebone
Sarriebone
19 May, 2020 13:52
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Our squad is more than 48 as you have to include academy who do play first team rugby. I must get the squad up to date but I reckon we have around 65 with the academy.
As I said, those are the numbers from the official website squad pages

MESSAGES->author
CoochieCoo
19 May, 2020 14:10
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Our squad is more than 48 as you have to include academy who do play first team rugby. I must get the squad up to date but I reckon we have around 65 with the academy.
As I said, those are the numbers from the official website squad pages

I just counted the main squad which is 51 on the offy and as I said the academy have made appearances in the first team e.g. Rhys Davies, Gabriel Hamer-Webb, Max Ojomoh and maybe others I have forgotten!



https://pbflaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mToRbTHGUTg0zWMi8LNeOlOmx4tZHsH3crYbASv0X_qWBw8j30S9KV-RiZIf_AWoOZXD7D3Rjy1tYRAKXykpZSHuOObVQBiovPpB6PnDUuBM6xlx2F1yOjKpEBmWUfMru3SCm255j3p-CnndC7J9ZUG29r1BtfFWHHj-MdzDOpzBuTRTPqNaco8ctf1svZyW0?width=106&height=160&cropmode=none
https://pbfkaa.by.files.1drv.com/y4mhxY1k8zrLn92LwcIYgSd1KcA6zBGX-Wgw2dNz8Us0xA71EhjMmL2tc-ggx7OlsBDECw8eAZ_oAWnNyh5doimzOEics5H87cuh5Q-Sb-ViPD6Pt6QUBneu5F2tlWLltGQZ8pd5qFmsZwbKB39L5Dki21gJfnsiaxLiCiuWPCZUjkXp4EttajzFAgcCl6YuDDF?width=160&height=107&cropmode=none

Sarriebone
Sarriebone
19 May, 2020 14:14
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
CoochieCoo
Our squad is more than 48 as you have to include academy who do play first team rugby. I must get the squad up to date but I reckon we have around 65 with the academy.
As I said, those are the numbers from the official website squad pages

I just counted the main squad which is 51 on the offy and as I said the academy have made appearances in the first team e.g. Rhys Davies, Gabriel Hamer-Webb, Max Ojomoh and maybe others I have forgotten!
Apologies, I did compile that list a few months back so it might have changed since then

John Tee
John Tee
19 May, 2020 19:21
Diamond was on RT recently and he discussed the cap, saying Sale had some big signings but was happy to run a small squad, 33, to cover it. At least, you can see his reasoning.
He also said the club was very well placed to see out this crisis and had much confidence in their financial model
So, by and large, i can see his big money signings and small squad making sense.

I think Bristol will have big marquee payments, then expensive players like Sinkler plus a lot of low level squad salaries.
Depends how lucky they are with injuries to their stars as to how the season will go.
I think Sale and Bristol will be top 4.

I dont think Bath, Glaws or Wasps and Tigers have made their moves yet....??

Muzza
Muzza
20 May, 2020 00:18
Quote:
How would we feel if a number of high profile England players decide that family financial security matters more than international caps?

Standard operating environment for South Africa, Australia Argentina and New Zealand for years. Its a struggle but competitive wise they've coped.

TomReagan
TomReagan
20 May, 2020 00:35
Agree with this. It's used as the main argument for keeping the salary cap and, especially right now, the game overstretching itself like Prem football. If the Prem loses a clutch of internationals who go abroad I can live with that. The ones at Bath hardly seem to play much anyway.

Bath Supporter Jack
Bath Supporter Jack
20 May, 2020 00:38
I recall when the financial results are produced by Mr C C I recall that losses were mainly in the sub £2m area.

Therefore a reduction of one marquee player and the cap reduced from £7m to £6m would, other things being equal, get most clubs to the right side of the line.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 07:25
See the ‘money pits’ thread BSJ. That would barely make a dent in quite a few of the clubs debt as they are losing 5,6 or 7m a year in some cases.

[www.rugbypass.com]

I guess the TV money hangs on the Prem saying that it has some of the best players. Could be a false economy if they get rid of marquees and the TV companies thought that the league was a less attractive proposition?

How much cash do they get for progressing in Europe - would that offset any saving too if they weren’t competitive?



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

MESSAGES->author
joethefanatic
20 May, 2020 07:37
Quote:
BathMatt53
See the ‘money pits’ thread BSJ. That would barely make a dent in quite a few of the clubs debt as they are losing 5,6 or 7m a year in some cases.
[www.rugbypass.com]

I guess the TV money hangs on the Prem saying that it has some of the best players. Could be a false economy if they get rid of marquees and the TV companies thought that the league was a less attractive proposition?

How much cash do they get for progressing in Europe - would that offset any saving too if they weren’t competitive?

The Aussie strategic review of their game recommends taking it back to the tribal heartlands and basically dumping Super Rugby. And NZ are having their own provinces comp - Super Rugby Aotearoa. With SA still having the Currie Cup as a major draw, super rugby may be finished.



... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

DanWiley
DanWiley
20 May, 2020 08:03
"I guess the TV money hangs on the Prem saying that it has some of the best players. "

I don't get the impression there's much of a market for prem rugby outside of England, or any league's rugby outside is home countries.

I don't think it's going to make any difference to people who currently watch it, they'll carry on doing so. I doubt bringing in foreign stars attracts new fans, I've hardly heard of most of them before they come, a doubt someone new to rugby would be bothered. If they watched England and want to start watching they might find it a little off-putting that Farrell is playing in France, I doubt it would be a deal breaker.

Moreover, if TV think they can make money out of rugby then it's TV, not the club's, that should be investing in the game. If TV puts the money in so clubs can afford more THEN you raise the cap, not before.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 08:07
Don’t think it works like that in the bidding process Dan - they bid for what you put forward. The next TV deal is imminent IIRC...that will force their hand if the clubs don’t get the cash they want / need.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

DanWiley
DanWiley
20 May, 2020 08:12
Well, I hope one day prem rugby realise that spending beyond its means in the hope of attracting money isn't going to work. Eventually it will kill them.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 09:32
Quote:
DanWiley
Well, I hope one day prem rugby realise that spending beyond its means in the hope of attracting money isn't going to work. Eventually it will kill them.

That 'eventually' may not be too far away if some of the reports are to be believed about the state of the finances of one or two of the clubs in particular...



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath
20 May, 2020 09:38
Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
DanWiley
Well, I hope one day prem rugby realise that spending beyond its means in the hope of attracting money isn't going to work. Eventually it will kill them.

That 'eventually' may not be too far away if some of the reports are to be believed about the state of the finances of one or two of the clubs in particular...

Believe the BT deal runs out at the end of 20/21 season. No way will premiership rugby TV rights be worth as much to renew if BT are actually interested.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 09:50
Yes, according to The Times:

'BT Sport, who have transformed Premiership rugbys coverage in recent years had an exclusive negotiating period with the league but that has come and gone without the broadcaster renewing, according to The Times.

They’ve reportedly also held talks with Sky but failed to agree a deal.

Premiership Rugby has declined to comment.'

So they get £40m per year with another £25.5 from the RFU at the moment...



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

DanWiley
DanWiley
20 May, 2020 09:58
Quote:
outsidebath
No way will premiership rugby TV rights be worth as much to renew

I'm not sure about this. Is watching on TV going to be that much worse if there's no crowd*? On the other hand, there are 12 clubs times 10-15k fans per home game that pay a LOT in order to see rugby that might not be able to do so. I'd have thought a lot of them already subscribe, but in a market where viewing figures are of the order of 300k, it would take many of those to sign up to make it a more desirable package.

* I wonder if there's a market for superimposed crowds? There must be tons of footage that could be used of people in the right place doing more or less the right thing. That footage has them all in the right place with respect to the pitch and cameras and they are all contained. Bit of AI to make it look like they are doing the right thing at the right time and the viewer would never know.

K-Nut
Bod
20 May, 2020 10:03
Munster sign RWC winners

"Irish club Munster have confirmed that Springbok World Cup winners Damian de Allende and RG Snyman will officially join them on 1 July."

"Another player to join is fullback Matt Gallagher, who will arrive in June from English club Saracens."


(Sm72)

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 10:20
Wow, those aren’t too shabby. Wonder how the Munster salary compares with theirs in Japan?



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

MESSAGES->author
OutsideBath
20 May, 2020 10:37
Quote:
DanWiley
Quote:
outsidebath
No way will premiership rugby TV rights be worth as much to renew

I'm not sure about this. Is watching on TV going to be that much worse if there's no crowd*

Yes, it’s dreadful. No crowd, no atmosphere and just feels like a tedious friendly.

DanWiley
DanWiley
20 May, 2020 10:54
Who knew we were so shallow?

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 11:14
Quote:
DanWiley
Quote:
outsidebath
No way will premiership rugby TV rights be worth as much to renew

I'm not sure about this. Is watching on TV going to be that much worse if there's no crowd*? On the other hand, there are 12 clubs times 10-15k fans per home game that pay a LOT in order to see rugby that might not be able to do so. I'd have thought a lot of them already subscribe, but in a market where viewing figures are of the order of 300k, it would take many of those to sign up to make it a more desirable package.


BT sport must be of the view that they can get a better deal - they let their exclusivity lapse so it will go to bidders. With Sky not interested I'm sure they are sniffing a bargain...as you would under those circumstances. I guess like anything in a bidding situation, its only worth as much as one person is willing to pay and the value will go up significantly if 2 or more are bidding and really want it. Time will tell.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

K-Nut
Bod
20 May, 2020 15:08
Quote:
BathMatt53
Wow, those aren’t too shabby. Wonder how the Munster salary compares with theirs in Japan?

Handred Pollard signed for Montpellier on £1.2 million/season - 3 years. Faf de Klerk is reportedly on £850,000/season. Draw your own conclusions?

(Sm72)

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
20 May, 2020 15:20
Quote:
Bod
Quote:
BathMatt53
Wow, those aren’t too shabby. Wonder how the Munster salary compares with theirs in Japan?

Handred Pollard signed for Montpellier on £1.2 million/season - 3 years. Faf de Klerk is reportedly on £850,000/season. Draw your own conclusions?

(Sm72)

Yes I know they are on a packet but I didn't know that Munster could throw a million quid at a couple of players and outbid the Japanese teams...unless Snyman got fed up of just running through everyone and was worried about the quality of his game.

Jesse Kriel signed at the same time as de Allende - I wonder if he is available too?



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

OldMarovian
OldMarovian
20 May, 2020 16:24
Quote:
John Tee
Diamond was on RT recently and he discussed the cap, saying Sale had some big signings but was happy to run a small squad, 33, to cover it. At least, you can see his reasoning.
He also said the club was very well placed to see out this crisis and had much confidence in their financial model
So, by and large, i can see his big money signings and small squad making sense.

His squad only makes sense if the limit of Sales ambitions are top 4 in the Premiership (not that that is a bad thing at all) as it would take relatively few injuries to significantly derail that squad and it's too small to realistically compete in Europe and the Premiership in the finals stages unless their European pool is a gimme and they are either so strong or the Premiership so weak that they have safely secured top 4 in the Premiership with a third of the season still to go. The former is possible, the later unlikely.

What they have done is spend their new investment wisely. Having not spent up to the cap for many seasons Diamond has become very good at managing his squad to remain competitive in the league. The change in the past two seasons has been that Sale have let go the majority of their non-EQP players from a variety of different places and recruited almost exclusively SA players instead. They haven't increased their no-EQP significantly just concentrated them from one countrty where they get great value and very importantly don't lose them for major parts of the season.

I get the feeling that Lam is looking to do a similar thing for "Islander" players. I also think Bristol have recruited well but the test isn't really being in cap when you've done nothing and won nothing but when you start to succeed and players are looking for more money, attracted by offers elsewhere, etc. When Bristol get to that stage (and I think they will) then I'll be interested in hearing how simple Lam finds balancing the cap.

K-Nut
Bod
20 May, 2020 16:30
[quote OldMarovian][quote John Tee]. I also think Bristol have recruited well but the test isn't really being in cap when you've done nothing and won nothing but when you start to succeed and players are looking for more money, attracted by offers elsewhere, etc. When Bristol get to that stage (and I think they will) then I'll be interested in hearing how simple Lam finds balancing the cap.[/quote]

I think the ongoing issue will be that players will be far more focused on being with clubs that will honour and pay their contracts.

(Sm72)

Banachek
Banachek
22 May, 2020 11:17
Quote:
DanWiley
Quote:
outsidebath
No way will premiership rugby TV rights be worth as much to renew

I'm not sure about this. Is watching on TV going to be that much worse if there's no crowd*? On the other hand, there are 12 clubs times 10-15k fans per home game that pay a LOT in order to see rugby that might not be able to do so. I'd have thought a lot of them already subscribe, but in a market where viewing figures are of the order of 300k, it would take many of those to sign up to make it a more desirable package.

* I wonder if there's a market for superimposed crowds? There must be tons of footage that could be used of people in the right place doing more or less the right thing. That footage has them all in the right place with respect to the pitch and cameras and they are all contained. Bit of AI to make it look like they are doing the right thing at the right time and the viewer would never know.

A couple of my lads games were videoed to high quality and put on line , after watching one for some time I realised the crowd noise (around 2000 attendance) was dubbed on ! To be honest it has hardly noticeable (I only noticed because I was at the game ) and the video had the feel of watching a normally recorded game. So I'd say that if they dubbed in the crowd shots as you describe and over dub the crowd noise. I doubt there would much difference for the TV viewer , if the games actually played behind closed doors !

K-Nut
Bod
26 May, 2020 17:12
Ringfence before varying salary cap

"“There’s no obligation for anyone to meet the full cap and we’ve never done it at Bristol,” Tainton said. “Two years ago, we were a couple of million under. This year we’re well under and although we’ll be closer to the cap next season, we’ll still be under it.

“If clubs can only go to £5m, then live within your means. That doesn’t mean you can’t be competitive because as long as you have total trust in your coaching team and staff, you can still compete in the Premiership, especially if there’s no relegation threat.

“With ring-fencing, the temptation to overspend won’t be there and it will allow Premiership clubs to put really good business plans together for the next three to five years."


(Sm72)

DanWiley
DanWiley
26 May, 2020 20:50
That makes no sense. It's not the teams that are at threat of relegation that are over spending.

BathMatt53
BathMatt53
26 May, 2020 22:24
Quote:
DanWiley
That makes no sense. It's not the teams that are at threat of relegation that are over spending.

Spending more than they have. Like Worcester.



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

K-Nut
Bod
27 May, 2020 15:04
Jerry and his NFL thoughts[b][/b]

"At the moment there is more disagreement than agreement among Premiership owners, and it has to change if the club game is going to reach its potential.

They are so much more collaborative in American pro sport. There is so much for English club rugby to learn from sports organisations like the NFL and NBA about being more harmonious and agreeable.

This leads to better governance and compliance – and the financial benefits that come from it."



(Sm72)


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net