Salary Cap changes

[Tigersman]

Salary Cap changes
2021-22 - New Cap of £5 million
2022-23 - 1 Marquee player only.

Cap will gradually increase to present level 2024-25 season.

[Oakboy]

How will the new set-up affect the standard of rugby in England; club and international? English players with international ambition will have to stay but what about foreign players? At the end of their contracts they may well go.

[Scrumhead]

Perhaps, but I think it’s fair to say the cap had got to an unsustainable level. There are a lot of average players who’ve been earning way over the odds. These changes are a) temporary and b) also don’t kick in until after next season so the clubs have time to adjust.

As a Quins fan, I’ve had a hard time understanding how we’ve been managing our cap over the last few years. Our squad has been pretty low on quality outside of the first XV but the club has always insisted we’ve been at the limit of the cap. Our England/ex England players have all been on big money which partially explains it, but I’ve often suspected to that we have been over-paying a lot of our squad players.

When it comes to the quality of the league being impacted, it’s also worth considering how many of the imports across the league are genuinely better than home grown equivalents. I’m not talking about the likes of Piutau or de Klerk, but more the second/third choice players in some squads. At Quins, our squad doesn’t actually have too many imported ‘squad’ players outside of the main 23, but in the past we’ve had quite a few players that probably weren’t any better than players we let go from the academy. I assume clubs will just need to be more careful in those kind of decisions.

[Stom]

Perhaps, but I think it’s fair to say the cap had got to an unsustainable level. There are a lot of average players who’ve been earning way over the odds. These changes are a) temporary and b) also don’t kick in until after next season so the clubs have time to adjust.

As a Quins fan, I’ve had a hard time understanding how we’ve been managing our cap over the last few years. Our squad has been pretty low on quality outside of the first XV but the club has always insisted we’ve been at the limit of the cap. Our England/ex England players have all been on big money which partially explains it, but I’ve often suspected to that we have been over-paying a lot of our squad players.

When it comes to the quality of the league being impacted, it’s also worth considering how many of the imports across the league are genuinely better than home grown equivalents. I’m not talking about the likes of Piutau or de Klerk, but more the second/third choice players in some squads. At Quins, our squad doesn’t actually have too many imported ‘squad’ players outside of the main 23, but in the past we’ve had quite a few players that probably weren’t any better than players we let go from the academy. I assume clubs will just need to be more careful in those kind of decisions.

I understand that Ross Chisholm, for instance, is on a wage far in excess of his ability and availability.

We've also consistently hired expensive foreigners who have failed to perform, whether through inability or injury (Roberts and Saili are 2 recent examples, you can add in many others to that list).

[Scrumhead]

Indeed. We used to have a good record for hiring quality from overseas - Big Mo, Fuga, Vos and Evans spring to mind. That’s not been the case in recent years.

We’re not he only ones, of course. However, I do wonder whether some of the random props We rarely see at some clubs are actually any better than players in the Championship or academies.

[Puja]

I understand that Ross Chisholm, for instance, is on a wage far in excess of his ability and availability.

You mean he's getting paid?!

I think it will help as well that most of the other markets for okay foreigners are going to be limited. The Celts aren't in any position to poach foreigners from the Premiership, JIFF is starting to bite in France and Japan is a very different culture and language, with only limited appetite for average foreigners. If/When MLR's salary cap starts to rise, they could be an option, but any Prem club who won't outbid the MLR top salary doesn't want to keep the player.

I think players as a whole might need to recognise that they've been a tad overpaid across the last 5-6 years and that they might need to cut their cloths a little more.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Might the global season alignment coincide and produce savings on the overall wage bill? Arguably, 1st team squads will be smaller if Premiership club fixtures do not coincide with internationals.

[Mellsblue]

Unless we want to run the EPS players into the ground, they won’t be playing in any more club matches than they do already.

One side effect maybe that the RFU might be more relaxed about EPS playing abroad if international windows bookend the domestic season.

[fivepointer]

I think players as a whole might need to recognise that they've been a tad overpaid across the last 5-6 years and that they might need to cut their cloths a little more.

Puja

You would hope they might see this. Wages have outstripped income to a ridiculous degree. The pro game in England cannot sustain the kind of salaries that have been routinely dished out.
Time for some realism, plus some serious investment in home grown talent. There's no point running academies if you're not prepared to give young players an opportunity. That, and having a look at what the Championship has to offer, which some clubs at least have been doing.

[Tigersman]

Unless we want to run the EPS players into the ground, they won’t be playing in any more club matches than they do already.

One side effect maybe that the RFU might be more relaxed about EPS playing abroad if international windows bookend the domestic season.

I think that was more a PRL thing that gets pushed into the RFau and PRL agreement

[Stom]

Indeed. We used to have a good record for hiring quality from overseas - Big Mo, Fuga, Vos and Evans spring to mind. That’s not been the case in recent years.

We’re not he only ones, of course. However, I do wonder whether some of the random props We rarely see at some clubs are actually any better than players in the Championship or academies.

We've improved at this compared to a few years ago.

But it does seem like the same few props rotate around middling premiership clubs as 3rd/4th choice. They stay for 1 or 2 seasons, then move onto the next club having played at most a handful of games.

[Oakboy]

Unless we want to run the EPS players into the ground, they won’t be playing in any more club matches than they do already.

One side effect maybe that the RFU might be more relaxed about EPS playing abroad if international windows bookend the domestic season.

I think that was more a PRL thing that gets pushed into the RFau and PRL agreement

The sports news at 7.30 on R4 this morning reported that the RFU had announced that it would NOT be changing its stance and emphasised that if players want to play FOR England they have to play IN England. I've no idea how accurate that report was but it sounded authentic.

[Scrumhead]

Indeed. We used to have a good record for hiring quality from overseas - Big Mo, Fuga, Vos and Evans spring to mind. That’s not been the case in recent years.

We’re not he only ones, of course. However, I do wonder whether some of the random props We rarely see at some clubs are actually any better than players in the Championship or academies.

We've improved at this compared to a few years ago.

But it does seem like the same few props rotate around middling premiership clubs as 3rd/4th choice. They stay for 1 or 2 seasons, then move onto the next club having played at most a handful of games.

I was thinking of someone like Jordan Lay at Bristol for example. 3 Premiership appearances in 2 years and just released. I’m sure he wasn’t expensive, but was he really needed that much more than an academy product?

[Stom]

Indeed. We used to have a good record for hiring quality from overseas - Big Mo, Fuga, Vos and Evans spring to mind. That’s not been the case in recent years.

We’re not he only ones, of course. However, I do wonder whether some of the random props We rarely see at some clubs are actually any better than players in the Championship or academies.

We've improved at this compared to a few years ago.

But it does seem like the same few props rotate around middling premiership clubs as 3rd/4th choice. They stay for 1 or 2 seasons, then move onto the next club having played at most a handful of games.

I was thinking of someone like Jordan Lay at Bristol for example. 3 Premiership appearances in 2 years and just released. I’m sure he wasn’t expensive, but was he really needed that much more than an academy product?

Is he not similar to Ross Chisholm, though? Someone signed just so they could sign his brother, too.

[Scrumhead]

Maybe Jordan Lay is a bad example, but it’s not like James Lay has played much more. 6 games in 2 seasons from what I saw. Both are off in any case.

[jimKRFC]

The Lays were a waste of money to be frank... but they hardly kept an academy player out of the squad as they barely played.

I appreciate that I'm looking at this issue from a different perspective to others. Bristol have nearly gone bust 3 times, spent years in the 2nd tier, and never been competitive since 83 when Bath poached some of our better players. Over the years I have seen loads of players develop at Bristol then leave for more money. At no point in the 20 odd years I've followed has Bristol complained about not being able to compete on financial front - let alone tried to get the rules changed. Not a word was said as the premiership clubs (Bris were 2nd tier) drove up the cap & wages forcing other clubs to wall to compete.

In light of that, my opinion is sod the lot of you - we can afford it, you can't - so don't spend it (& don't over pay average forigners (like the Lays)) and adjust to fighting for survival and mid-table, just like L.Welsh, Leeds, Worcester, Richmond, London Scottish and Bristol did.

Lansdown agreed to it though so it was it is, but if Bristol Sport (Bristols owning group) can afford to spend more why shouldn't they? If that means we're in the brown sticky stuff when they leave/give up then so be it - we've been there before.

[Scrumhead]

I kind of understand your POV, but the overriding concern for me is the sustainability of pro rugby in England. Without these cut backs, the game is under serious threat.

Bristol may be able to rely on a rich owner but they’re one of a handful of clubs in that situation. Do you want to play in a league of 4 clubs?

[Digby]

If Brizzle really have the money they're free to launch a breakaway product and if necessary fund the other teams they'll be able to beat

[Tigersman]

Every club has their players poached.
Have literally the lowest amount of academy players throughout the whole league either playing for them or rival prem clubs.
21 players
Tigers at the top have 50 players.

Literally nothing special or unique about Bristol in that department despite what Bristol fans might thin.

[ExAviator]

“I kind of understand your POV, but the overriding concern for me is the sustainability of pro rugby in England. Without these cut backs, the game is under serious threat.”

Why?

I say good luck to Bristol if this team can afford it! Teams should spend what they can afford. After a good year with academy players, a team spending less could challenge Bristol. Exeter seemed to be competitive in the Premiership when allegedly spending considerably less than Saracens – but Exeter as a Club was a total failure in Europe. Yes, they came up short in ‘play offs’ but this was a function of not being used to playing in the more competitive European matches. In the less successful years a team spending less than Bristol, could well end up lower in the Premiership, but does that mean oblivion? When all teams are spending the same low amount, several will end up near the top - but the majority will still be lower down so will these all fail?
A better financed Bristol will be more competitive in Europe. I suggest If the Premiership teams continually fail in Europe, this is a more significant threat to the future success of English and Premiership Club Rugby.
The only problem is if Premiership teams deliberately spend more than they can afford, and this applies whatever the level of cap that is set. I cannot believe that all Clubs spending the same reduced amount will put more ‘bums on seats’ in the less well supported clubs!
I say: let our Premiership teams stay competitive with the well-financed French and Irish teams rather than sinking into mediocrity.

“Do you want to play in a league of 4 clubs?”

Yes if the alternative is twelve dull stodgy cloned ‘all equal teams’. But it is not. Things change: Exeter is the classic example of making your way to the top without necessarily spending vast sums of money. Think of Premiership football: at times, the best financed are dominant but not always – Leicester! And teams that are richest are not always successful.
I’ll go and put my cricket box and scrum cap on!

[Mellsblue]

You’ve got to lol at a bunch who’ve spent the past x number of years throwing their weight and cheque books around at and against everyone else, now pleading poverty and asking for a fair playing field amongst themselves.
It seems they want all the upside of competitive markets when it helps them but not the downsides when it might upset their cartel (not my word but that of quite a few others). They’ve run unsustainable businesses for years without giving a shiny shite about the rest of the game, community initiatives aside, or, seemingly, making any strides towards making their businesses sustainable and now the majority of them are the small fish in a different pond they plead poverty and a fairer playing field. If I were Exe, Bath, Bristol and Sale, I’d have told them to feck off. You don’t have to spend to the cap and a number of them might be better off if they’re forced to think outside the box to compete.

[Tigersman]

Sale pushed for it.

And Ironically the clubs that really need help are the ones who haven't even really payed up to the cap before in recent history.
Falcons
Irish
Worcester

[Scrumhead]

That would be fine if it wasn’t creating a situation where player wages are pretty much unaffordable. I’m not saying that the clubs are innocent of having managed their finances poorly, but if the market you’re operating in effectively inflates the cost base to a level your income won’t ever sustain, there’s only one outcome.

There just isn’t enough money in the sport and COVID-19 has simply put that in to sharper focus.

[Tigersman]

If clubs don’t have to spend to the salary cap and should spend what they want then maybe the cap shouldn’t exist?

[16th man]

Is there not a potential issue that needs to be kept in mind that, should player wages reduce to a level that is deemed "sustainable" from crowd and TV income, and the instances of injuries keep going up in line with the size and speed of the players, we may start losing players to the game much earlier.

Its an issue that could bite at both ends of the age spectrum, as older players don't want to carry on accepting the increasing risks of injury for reduced reward and academy players see degrees and careers in professions with considerably less risk of brain damage as more attractive.