Is it time for a European Salary cap?

First topic message reminder :

I'm not a bitter Leinster fan, I'm not even Irish but it seems wrong to me that a team of players mainly brought through the province and at their best a joy to watch have came against a team of mercenaries, albeit ones whom have wholeheartedly bought into their club ethos and give absolutely everything, and have been beaten with relative ease. But that is just the tip of the iceberg, the wealth of the French clubs is killing the domestic game in Wales, the best southern hemisphere talent is generally going to France rather than the RaboDirect or the Aviva and is damaging the French team as an international force. The English clubs launched a campaign against the Heineken Cup following the successes of the Irish provinces claiming they could rest their players and therefore had an unfair advantage but what we're faced with now is two or three French teams saturated with retired Internationals sweeping away all in their path. Toulouse have attempted to keep playing French players and are no longer a European power.

Portnoy, anything I've heard about Irish wages in the last few years is that the IRFU are cutting budgets. There are far less central contracts, less, and slightly lower quality foreign signings, and players have taken pay cuts. The IRFU refused Sexton the extra 100k that would have matched Heaslips wage and kept him in Ireland.

On a side note, Thornley made the not so silly point in the Indo, that if Leinster qualified for the semi's it would have earned the IRFU much more than 100k. And they may well have beaten Northampton at home with Europe's best flyhalf and a Leinster leader still there, thus avoiding Toulon away. Ah well.

The most recent pay news is that Heaslip got a pretty big paying contract though, so maybe things are starting to look up again after that wee "almost crashed the western financial system" thing.

broadlandboy wrote:As, would that include Union teams as well?

Not aware of any unions with wealthy backers that are bailing them out? Many run with losses, but they seem to have the cash flows that mean banks are 'comfortable' lending to them

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:So it's about a comment made by Logan two years ago and a situation like now where it is rumoured that the IRFU is feeling forced to hike its pay structure to secure the services of its marquee players to stem a potential exodus.

What was Logan's authority to base his comment back then? Is he an IRFU official, a journo or what?

Shane Logan is Ulster's CEO - I think he should know.
Said at a meeting with Ulster supporters so maybe why you cannot find it on the web.
Our local rugby journo wouldn't know a news story if it punched him in the face so porbably ignored it , or didn't attend.

As noted the IRFU are cutting back on Central Contracts and are also trying to get the senior provinces to go from 5 to 4 NIQ players in their squads.
Both of those are downward pressures on salaries so I would suggest it is reasonable to assume that compared to English salaries there is no great difference.
Also figures have been tweeted by a Welsh journo, which quoted actual figures, and he was adamant they were 100% accurate but no idea as to where he got this info from. if accurate the Irish provinces are definitely not higher than the Englsih salary cap.

No. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying what I think you think I'm saying. I have absolutely no doubt that senior professional salaries in England and Ireland would be roughly similar.

What was in my mind (and following on from a previous post) is that the English wage cap is helped by the RFUs pretty firm insistence that English players are required to play for English clubs in order to play for England.

I think that a similar stance by the IRFU would avoid a wage-driven exodus abroad would help suppress internal wage inflation.

Whilst I'm at it, English rugby does not benefit from massive cash injections from the state or local government on capital expenditure. That helps balancing Irish books more than a little, I suspect.

As What I meant is Is there a difference between a "sugar daddy" putting money into a team losing money and Unions putting money into teams losing money?

broadlandboy, well the sugar daddies put it in as loans that could in theory be repaid/recalled at some point, or interest. The Unions give the money (I think), although they can loan as well for things like stadium developments (Thomond Park?)

Geoff, I would actually say that reducing the number of NIQ players allowed would drive up prices not down. You're increasing you reliance on a limited player pool and therefore their 'value' goes up. Since most of the squad would be from this squad it would drive up the costs. How much would depend on the number and quality in the pool.

An European competition specific cap wouldn't work at all imo.

 Look I think it will take time but clubs are starting to catch up to the French in terms of strength.

 Leicester nearly beat Clermont this weekend despite giving them a head start and missing Cole, Parling, Croft, Benjamin, thompstone and Morris 5 of those could be considered starters.

 Munster turned over Toulouse.

 As long as the French cap doesn't keep on increasing then I am not to worried I think they may be to many international games during the regular season which also finish/ start right  before/After some of the HC rounds.

 In the AP the cap is finally starting to show good depth in teams strengths with each other there has been no easy game for a lot of the times.

 When I think of the players tigers have lost recently due to cap issues outside of Castro I cant think of any others who would have been starting this weekend. (Goneva if he goes next season)

I

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:  think that a similar stance by the IRFU would avoid a wage-driven exodus abroad would help suppress internal wage inflation.

The IRFU patently already have a stance that is both avoiding players going abroad and is also keeping salaries at English as opposed to French levels

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:  Whilst I'm at it, English rugby does not benefit from massive cash injections from the state or local government on capital expenditure. That helps balancing Irish books more than a little, I suspect.  

What massive injections are you talking about - Thomond park had to be paid for, Irish rugbys had to pay a significant segment of the cost of the Aviva. Now 3 of the 4 stands at Ulster are an exception but the benefit so far is 1 game and as such the achievement so far and the fact the books are balanced year on year has nothing to do with this cash injection

broadlandboy wrote:As What I meant is Is there a difference between a "sugar daddy" putting money into a team losing money and Unions putting money into teams losing money?

The difference is Irish rugby as an entity maintains itself and balances the books.
8 of the 12 English clubs are losing money.
The difference is one is sustainable in the long term without changing the model the other is only sustainable if sugar daddies are prepared to lose money year on year

HammerofThunor wrote:
Geoff, I would actually say that reducing the number of NIQ players allowed would drive up prices not down.  You're increasing you reliance on a limited player pool and therefore their 'value' goes up. Since most of the squad would be from this squad it would drive up the costs.  How much would depend on the number and quality in the pool.

Provided the IRFU remain hard nosed about outside of Ireland your chances are severly limited I do not think this is true.
We have seen a reduction in central contract i.e those players betwen place 20 and 30, in the pecking order, getting less money over the last couple of yers this has not seen an exodus.

TOL maybe, but struggling to think of anyone else who fits the bill.
Cout would have gone anyway because there is no way IRFU or Ulster were going to be prepared to match a 3 year contract offered by Irish for a 33 year old.

broadlandboy wrote:As What I meant is Is there a difference between a "sugar daddy" putting money into a team losing money and Unions putting money into teams losing money?

Right, gotcha - possibly not

geoff998rugby wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Geoff, I would actually say that reducing the number of NIQ players allowed would drive up prices not down.  You're increasing you reliance on a limited player pool and therefore their 'value' goes up. Since most of the squad would be from this squad it would drive up the costs.  How much would depend on the number and quality in the pool.

Provided the IRFU remain hard nosed about outside of Ireland your chances are severly limited I do not think this is true.
We have seen a reduction in central contract i.e those players betwen place 20 and 30, in the pecking order,  getting less money over the last couple of yers this has not seen an exodus.

TOL maybe, but struggling to think of anyone else who fits the bill.
Cout would have gone anyway because there is no way IRFU or Ulster were going to be prepared to match a 3 year contract offered by Irish for a 33 year old.

It's not really the international quality players it hits. It the guys below it who make up the numbers of IQ but aren't really challenging for international honours. The good solid club players. It may be that you don't have any of those guys in Ireland as it stands because they already leave. If you're just made up of Internationals and academy players it should make much difference. It's a much bigger problem in England as the players have a lot of options and a solid club player for a top clubs could get more money for a more significant place in a weaker team. That's one of the reasons the RFU provide financial incentives to play England players (which still drives up their 'value').

In Ireland such players get an opportunity because we restrict the number of NIQ players in the squad.

It is true some leave but with ony 4 teams that is always going to be the case