RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:First. A group can decide to amend their regulations if they all agree. Thus since Sarries agree to be relegated and unsurprisingly everyone else agrees they should too there's no issue with whether the regulations did or didn't allow relegation before. The mechanism is only interesting to geeks like us and therefore unlikely to be the subject of a press release.

Second, I don't really see the point in having any person developed by the club from academy and continually employed by them included in the cap. You definitely want to stop people from buying the GP by waving a big wallet at the best. Do you really want to stop them from, er... investing in their academy and nurturing them and encouraging them to stay at the club as long as possible?

Agree wholly with your second point but not with your first. For all that I think Sarries should be punished, there are rules and regs for a reason. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. Even more so when a trial by your rivals seems to supersede the (expensive) advice of a big legal brain(s). The whole thing has been a shambles from Sarries taking the piss to the Prem clubs making up punishments on the back of a fag packet.

And when a team who for whatever reason have a lot of academy boys, start using the rest of their now massive cap to take academy players from other teams who for whatever reason have less?

It's a double whammy to lose an academy player that way.

Raggs wrote:And when a team who for whatever reason have a lot of academy boys, start using the rest of their now massive cap to take academy players from other teams who for whatever reason have less?

It's a double whammy to lose an academy player that way.

As I said, there would need to be factors to mitigate against that but my focus would be on rewarding those who produce players not helping those who don’t.
Just off the top of my head. You could award a club extra cap space for an academy product even if he has left. It could be linked to Prem and international appearances and taper off across 3/4/5 years. I’d also link the extra cap space to when a payer joins a club. Again, off the top of my head, join at 14/15 and that player doesn’t count against your cap as long as he’s with you (with perhaps some tapering at 30 to stop them blocking the next wave) but join at 18 and only 50% of salary is outside the cap.
There are issues round it but when you read Itoje’s salary wasn’t even close to being the highest in the Prem for a lock you do have some sympathy.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:And when a team who for whatever reason have a lot of academy boys, start using the rest of their now massive cap to take academy players from other teams who for whatever reason have less?

It's a double whammy to lose an academy player that way.

As I said, there would need to be factors to mitigate against that but my focus would be on rewarding those who produce players not helping those who don’t.
Just off the top of my head. You could award a club extra cap space for an academy product even if he has left. It could be linked to Prem and international appearances and taper off across 3/4/5 years. I’d also link the extra cap space to when a payer joins a club. Again, off the top of my head, join at 14/15 and that player doesn’t count against your cap as long as he’s with you (with perhaps some tapering at 30 to stop them blocking the next wave) but join at 18 and only 50% of salary is outside the cap.
There are issues round it but when you read Itoje’s salary wasn’t even close to being the highest in the Prem for a lock you do have some sympathy.

So now it gets more complicated? Just having a lot of academy players of roughly prem standard could then see you do quite well farming them all out, since you get 3/4/5 years cap space out of them? Academies with greater numbers can pump out a load of journeymen, whilst somewhere like Saints (if what you say about their catchment is correct), are still going to be struggling.

I agree that academies should be encouraged, but to me it looks like they are already, and all clubs seem to be investing well into them. Trying to show Sarries as these super examples, when it's been them mostly snatching away top quality academy products from other sides through the seasons, isn't a great example of how much better their academy is, it's just another effect of them breaking the cap.

When you read that Itoje got £1.2m more in image rights I'm not sure you can argue that his salary was lower. His official on the books salary, sure, but would he accept that at another club, without the image rights overpayment, and the free media work payments?

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:And when a team who for whatever reason have a lot of academy boys, start using the rest of their now massive cap to take academy players from other teams who for whatever reason have less?

It's a double whammy to lose an academy player that way.

As I said, there would need to be factors to mitigate against that but my focus would be on rewarding those who produce players not helping those who don’t.
Just off the top of my head. You could award a club extra cap space for an academy product even if he has left. It could be linked to Prem and international appearances and taper off across 3/4/5 years. I’d also link the extra cap space to when a payer joins a club. Again, off the top of my head, join at 14/15 and that player doesn’t count against your cap as long as he’s with you (with perhaps some tapering at 30 to stop them blocking the next wave) but join at 18 and only 50% of salary is outside the cap.
There are issues round it but when you read Itoje’s salary wasn’t even close to being the highest in the Prem for a lock you do have some sympathy.

So now it gets more complicated? Just having a lot of academy players of roughly prem standard could then see you do quite well farming them all out, since you get 3/4/5 years cap space out of them? Academies with greater numbers can pump out a load of journeymen, whilst somewhere like Saints (if what you say about their catchment is correct), are still going to be struggling.

I agree that academies should be encouraged, but to me it looks like they are already, and all clubs seem to be investing well into them. Trying to show Sarries as these super examples, when it's been them mostly snatching away top quality academy products from other sides through the seasons, isn't a great example of how much better their academy is, it's just another effect of them breaking the cap.

When you read that Itoje got £1.2m more in image rights I'm not sure you can argue that his salary was lower. His official on the books salary, sure, but would he accept that at another club, without the image rights overpayment, and the free media work payments?

It’s fairly complicated already. Though, I’m not sure why a system being complicated is a barrier to it being implemented, if it is viewed as more equitable and leads to even more focus on academy products. Not that I’m convinced this system would be complicated for a someone of decent IQ.

Clubs do invest in their academies but you get the feeling that may change as they struggle to fit all of their products into the cap. I’m not holding the Sarries academy up as some bastion of greatness but given this thread has their name in the title they do seem a good example to use.

Spin Itoje’s payments how you like it, and the image rights figure was supplied by PWC, his salary was still low.

What would you like to see happen? It’s pretty obvious issue that clubs are effectively punished for producing and improving top quality players.

Mellsblue wrote:It’s fairly complicated already. Though, I’m not sure why a system being complicated is a barrier to it being implemented, if it is viewed as more equitable and leads to even more focus on academy products. Not that I’m convinced this system would be complicated for a someone of decent IQ.

Clubs do invest in their academies but you get the feeling that may change as they struggle to fit all of their products into the cap. I’m not holding the Sarries academy up as some bastion of greatness but given this thread has their name in the title they do seem a good example to use.

Spin Itoje’s payments how you like it, and the image rights figure was supplied by PWC, his salary was still low.

What would you like to see happen? It’s pretty obvious issue that clubs are effectively punished for producing and improving top quality players.

I don't think £50k per home grown is that complicated.

I think some top limit that is included in the cap could be interesting. Say £400k, whilst keeping the £50k upto that point.

That way a Sinckler quality player would still eat up a lunch chunk of cap, but at the same time, could be paid far more than that to keep him at a club.

There again, I don't know how many clubs could reasonably pay crazy wages to too many players anyway.

Before you draft any "what I would do" regulations for the academy credits is decide what you want it to do; and what you want the salary cap itself to do.
I obviously want very different things to Mells.

I want the salary cap to keep club spending to being sustainable(a stretch at current levels, but all seem to be finding enough investment), whilst encouraging competition between clubs so that no club has a clear advantage due to wealthy benefactor, or productive catchment area.
I then want the academy credits to make it so that any club wanting to recruit one of your graduates needs to offer a reasonably significant upgrade to what you're willing to pay; hopefully whilst keep the regulation relatively simple, and not creating loopholes.

Any opportunity for 1 club to simply horde talent, is going directly against my aims.
Any opportunity to simply remove players from the cap, allowing it to be spent elsewhere goes directly against my aims.
Anything that gives a rich club a direct benefit over a poorer club (that can still spend up to the cap) goes directly against my aims.
Anything that has to make complicated accommodation for things like catchment area goes directly against my aims.

Which Tyler wrote:Before you draft any "what I would do" regulations for the academy credits is decide what you want it to do; and what you want the salary cap itself to do.
I obviously want very different things to Mells.

I want the salary cap to keep club spending to being sustainable(a stretch at current levels, but all seem to be finding enough investment), whilst encouraging competition between clubs so that no club has a clear advantage due to wealthy benefactor, or productive catchment area.
I then want the academy credits to make it so that any club wanting to recruit one of your graduates needs to offer a reasonably significant upgrade to what you're willing to pay; hopefully whilst keep the regulation relatively simple, and not creating loopholes.

Any opportunity for 1 club to simply horde talent, is going directly against my aims.
Any opportunity to simply remove players from the cap, allowing it to be spent elsewhere goes directly against my aims.
Anything that gives a rich club a direct benefit over a poorer club (that can still spend up to the cap) goes directly against my aims.
Anything that has to make complicated accommodation for things like catchment area goes directly against my aims.

Yes.

Perhaps the £50k/player limit is too low now, what with the cost of Lions stars like Sinckler, George, Itoje, Farrell, Watson, Daly, etc...

Maybe up to £100k/player and up to £1m would be more workable long term. But that it's not limited to 10 players, so if you have a lot of young academy players, they can be "outside" the cap.

Stom wrote:Yes.

Perhaps the £50k/player limit is too low now, what with the cost of Lions stars like Sinckler, George, Itoje, Farrell, Watson, Daly, etc...

Maybe up to £100k/player and up to £1m would be more workable long term. But that it's not limited to 10 players, so if you have a lot of young academy players, they can be "outside" the cap.

For me, the big thing is that it's limited in how many players it can be used for, and (I think) limited on their age as well (is it 26 that they no longer qualify? or am I confusing myself with something else? like current academy vs senior?)
My 10% from earlier was more-or-less pulled out of my backside; but I'd be happy with a straight percentage, or a £X or Y% - whichever is higher; but allow as many players as you like, and of any age, just so long as they haven't left and returned; and were genuine academy products, rather than the likes of Billy or Watson who were "signed to the academy" bu miraculously made their breakthrough 2 months later.

I don't think £50k is too little to give the holding club a significant advantage in contract negotiations though - if anything, it's higher than I would like (on average), as I DO want competition between the clubs. £50k is half the wage of a solid pro!
Bringing it back to Saracens - not only do their academy kids come from a brilliant catchment area, and then train with good coaches with a good attitude, but they also get to train with world class players in their position, have time to stake a place in the matchday XXIIIs and XVs, but they also never leave the club unless seen as surplus to requirements. Saracens have never had to say "We just couldn't afford to match the salary offered" when it comes to contracts - which IMO is a bad thing for the league. Quin, on the other hand, have said precisely that, today.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It’s fairly complicated already. Though, I’m not sure why a system being complicated is a barrier to it being implemented, if it is viewed as more equitable and leads to even more focus on academy products. Not that I’m convinced this system would be complicated for a someone of decent IQ.

Clubs do invest in their academies but you get the feeling that may change as they struggle to fit all of their products into the cap. I’m not holding the Sarries academy up as some bastion of greatness but given this thread has their name in the title they do seem a good example to use.

Spin Itoje’s payments how you like it, and the image rights figure was supplied by PWC, his salary was still low.

What would you like to see happen? It’s pretty obvious issue that clubs are effectively punished for producing and improving top quality players.

I don't think £50k per home grown is that complicated.

I think some top limit that is included in the cap could be interesting. Say £400k, whilst keeping the £50k upto that point.

That way a Sinckler quality player would still eat up a lunch chunk of cap, but at the same time, could be paid far more than that to keep him at a club.

There again, I don't know how many clubs could reasonably pay crazy wages to too many players anyway.

The salary cap as a whole is pretty complicated, assuming you believe the system I outlined is complicated. I was not talking about academy player credits in isolation.

I happy with the idea of a £400k/x cap on each player but you’re still punishing a club for developing top quality players. As long as a club is properly rewarded for producing talent I’m not really bothered how it’s done.

I'm aware of how complicated the cap is, I've gone through it a fair few times, but nowhere does it start getting anywhere near as complicated as trying to link prem/int appearances to a tapering off cap allowances when an academy player moves on over a period of seasons.

Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

Raggs wrote:I'm aware of how complicated the cap is, I've gone through it a fair few times, but nowhere does it start getting anywhere near as complicated as trying to link prem/int appearances to a tapering off cap allowances when an academy player moves on over a period of seasons.

Cool. Don’t see it as complicated myself.

Banquo wrote:Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

Burn the witch!

Though there probably is a problem who 'we' is

Banquo wrote:Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

You been on a spiritual retreat?

Banquo wrote:Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

How far back do you want us to step? Are we talking about Academy Dispensation? The Salary Cap as a whole? PRL as a whole? The makeup of professional rugby in England? Or the entire makeup of professional rugby globally?

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

How far back do you want us to step? Are we talking about Academy Dispensation? The Salary Cap as a whole? PRL as a whole? The makeup of professional rugby in England? Or the entire makeup of professional rugby globally?

What professional club rugby should look like in England, rather than debating which brand of lipstick to put on the pig.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

How far back do you want us to step? Are we talking about Academy Dispensation? The Salary Cap as a whole? PRL as a whole? The makeup of professional rugby in England? Or the entire makeup of professional rugby globally?

What professional club rugby should look like in England, rather than debating which brand of lipstick to put on the pig.

Do you want to go first? or shall I?
Or do we assume that, as we're all long-standing posters here, we mostly know each other's opinions on that one? (as opposed to any backrow debate, ever)

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Is it time to step back and think what we want the end state to be, rather than putting sticking plaster on something that seems to be a bit broken?

How far back do you want us to step? Are we talking about Academy Dispensation? The Salary Cap as a whole? PRL as a whole? The makeup of professional rugby in England? Or the entire makeup of professional rugby globally?

What professional club rugby should look like in England, rather than debating which brand of lipstick to put on the pig.

Which has a powerpoint ready, just in case someone asked them that!

Puja

Again, I don't really see the point in including academy in the cap. I get the sustainability argument from WT, but limiting spend on your own product seems to do the reverse. Academies are self limiting because there are only so many people you can have in them and develop. If you need to adjust the rest of the cap to keep clubs sustainable then that can be done, though the cap is the bluntest of blunt tools. If you have unfair academy catchment areas then that's stupid and should be fixed but really nothing to do with removing academy product from cap.

Academy players aren't included in the cap. We're talking about homegrown players who came through the academy.

Not including them in the cap just leaves a massive excess of funds available to those with more numbers. Teams could start to get more aggressive in targeting academy players to achieve the double whammy effect of simultaenously strengthening their team, whilst weakening an opponent (and also forcing them to spread their cap more thinly).

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: How far back do you want us to step? Are we talking about Academy Dispensation? The Salary Cap as a whole? PRL as a whole? The makeup of professional rugby in England? Or the entire makeup of professional rugby globally?

What professional club rugby should look like in England, rather than debating which brand of lipstick to put on the pig.

Do you want to go first? or shall I?
Or do we assume that, as we're all long-standing posters here, we mostly know each other's opinions on that one? (as opposed to any backrow debate, ever)

I think we know about who wants ring fencing, less clubs etc etc or otherwise. But I'm asking what the relation between club and country should be, what the ambition is for the standard of Premiership Rugby, goals for competing in Europe and so on. Also, how on earth do you balance ambitions with a loss making whole?

One annoying this about Sarries is they were engaged in the biggest pile of rotation I've ever seen in the GP and Europe this season, and perhaps set to do well in both on the back of that rotation. And now that's just going to be overlooked or even forgotten about as we go back to overworking the players as the driving concept

Digby wrote:One annoying this about Sarries is they were engaged in the biggest pile of rotation I've ever seen in the GP and Europe this season, and perhaps set to do well in both on the back of that rotation. And now that's just going to be overlooked or even forgotten about as we go back to overworking the players as the driving concept

I don’t really get your point there. There were able to rotate their squad so heavily for a reason.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:One annoying this about Sarries is they were engaged in the biggest pile of rotation I've ever seen in the GP and Europe this season, and perhaps set to do well in both on the back of that rotation. And now that's just going to be overlooked or even forgotten about as we go back to overworking the players as the driving concept

I don’t really get your point there. There were able to rotate their squad so heavily for a reason.

There was a lesson to be learned, one that was going to be rammed down the throats of various DoRs. And yes whilst it's easier for them they're also playing at a higher level than half the league. Now the lesson will be happily ignored