DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 151439--------------------------------------------------
Brian Moore
By: deadlyfrom5yardsout Date: March 23, 2026, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why I have changed my mind on Prem’s salary cap
Sir James Dyson’s purchase of 50 per cent of Bath gives fresh
impetus to co-owner Bruce Craig’s ambition of ending wage limits
The news that Sir James Dyson has bought a 50 per cent stake in
Bath will delight the club’s fans, but it will send a shiver
down the spines of many other Prem Rugby followers. In
association with co-owner Bruce Craig, Dyson now presents a
formidable monetary presence behind the club, which should
embolden its ambitions for the foreseeable future. The
ramifications for professional rugby in England are uncertain –
they might be positive and negative – but nobody should doubt
that this alliance will have considerable influence.
Before looking at possible league-wide effects, we should make
an observation that Bath fans should support. Dyson is said to
be a long-time fan of Bath but, as other sporting organisations
now know, when a fan puts money into their club, especially a
large amount, there has been a ruinous tendency to think they
should extend their power to influence affairs on-field as well
as in the management and coaching teams. You cannot really stop
an owner wielding this power, but it rarely ends well. There are
numerous examples of wealthy businessmen making this mistake and
few have the humility or good judgment to admit this failing.
I’m with the late, great Sir Brian Clough on this one: the job
of owners should be to concentrate on the financial side of a
sporting club.
So what of the wide imports for the Premiership? First among
these is that the long-time ambition of Craig to get rid of the
league’s salary cap might be given fresh impetus. Several other
owners and directors of club rugby have told me about his aim
and for years I have argued against it. I always did so because
looking at the evidence from other sports you can, subject to
anomalies, broadly correlate a club’s final league table
position according to their salary spending. Does the
Premiership want to lock-in that sort of advantage?
Against all my natural inclinations, I now think this risk is a
price that Prem Rugby might have to bear, if it wants to improve
its financial condition. Having no salary cap would increase the
risk of clubs going bankrupt and it would put more pressure on
other clubs to increase their expenditure to keep up with
leading spenders, but several clubs went bankrupt with the cap,
so that in itself appears to be of limited use anyway.
Without other reforms, like reducing the number of
substitutions, which would allow significant reductions in squad
numbers, I fear clubs are bound to repeat the first 30 years of
professionalism and expect different results, which some would
say is not wise.
It is understandable that players and their agents would support
this initiative; however, increasing wages without corresponding
improvements in performance or the acquisition of higher quality
players is an issue that prudent business management should
address effectively. In this sort of field Dyson ought to be
able to help Bath directly; business measurement metrics must be
an area within his expertise.
The temptation to buy the best and most expensive talent from
overseas would also increase, but this can be tempered by
constant vigilance over the England-qualified players (EQPs)
stipulation in the Prem rules. It is crucial not to endanger the
principle behind the current rule of an average of 15 EQPs per
match-day squad. That number should take account of the national
team’s requirements and should be adjusted over time and when
necessary.
The RFU and the Prem should also keep a note of the number of
games and minutes played by EQPs in a season. English rugby’s
cause is not properly served if nearly half a club’s EQPs are on
the bench and not getting game time or not doing so in
meaningful matches.
Now that the Prem’s franchise model has been passed by 51 votes
to four, the top flight of club rugby needs to continue its
innovative outlook. Not least to provide a deterrent to projects
like R360 which, ironically, also involves former Bath figures
like Mike Tindall and Stuart Hooper, their former director of
rugby. The presence of brands like Red Bull and figures like
Dyson must work against the sort of hijacking proposed by such
disruptor brands.
Rugby is going to go through difficult and debatable changes in
the short and medium term, but ducking out of financial
decisions will not save it. The romantics who have the luxury of
comment without consequences, have to finally stop being
dishonest about what is the most fundamental issue in rugby: how
are you going to make this work?
Opine all you like, but critics should not be allowed to get
away with issuing platitudes of principle if they cannot specify
how those are going to be paid for.
#Post#: 151444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: Rugbycat Date: March 23, 2026, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
He fails to explain, how not having a cap and spending more
makes you a profit, the French cap is much higher than the Prem,
they have larger stadiums and a much better TV deal, yet mostly
still lose lots of money.
The biggest money making league in world sport the NFL has a pay
cap, as do all the US franchise leagues except Baseball.
Better media rights and larger stadiums are the only way to make
a profit, perhaps link the cap with clubs income, but that then
ground naming and owners shirt deals become a way of abusing it,
or just raise it by a couple of million.
One very rich person of advanced age buying into a club, does
not change the problems of the league, reducing the amount of
subs is down to world rugby, the french raised it and world
rugby ignored it.
#Post#: 151446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: FrostAndFire Date: March 23, 2026, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This seems an entirely incoherent article. Arguing for spending
more without any suggestions of where the income to pay for it
should come from is irresponsible. We already rely on the
charity of a few very wealthy men. The sport does not become
more sustainable by increasing that. Maybe we need to face up to
the fact that the sport in England (and Wales) does not justify
the money it spends, and until it does or we spend less, we're
always going to be in crisis.
#Post#: 151448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: MaidstoneQuin Date: March 23, 2026, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what major changes to make, but I would like to see
clubs benefiting more from promoting from within. Perhaps some
kind of increase on the cap per registered squad players at the
start of the season who've come through the academy system at
the same club. Would encourage to develop the youth, rather than
just blanket signing anyone, and then allow clubs to really get
an extra one or two class players they might not be able to get
if already spending up to the cap
#Post#: 151449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: Rugbycat Date: March 23, 2026, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is already a home grown player credit but increasing that
would be a good idea, rather than just a blanket increase.
THE LEVEL OF THE SALARY CAP
For the 2025-26 Salary Cap Year, the level of the Salary Cap is
£6,400,000 with the following credits and exclusions, which
means that Clubs can spend at least £7.8m plus an Excluded
Player Salary:
Home Grown Player Credits totalling £600,000 (up to £50,000 per
player) – designed to incentivise Clubs to retain home grown
talent;
EPS/International Player Credits totalling £400,000 (up to
£80,000 per player) – to cover player absence during
international periods;
Injured Player Credits totalling £400,000 – to allow replacement
players to cover for long term injuries;
One Excluded Player – whose entire salary is excluded from the
Salary Cap;
Unlimited education fund for players.
HOW DOES THE SALARY CAP WORK?
In professional sports, a Salary Cap is an agreement or rule
that places a limit on the amount of money that a team can spend
on player salaries – in PREM Rugby it is a total squad spend and
not a restriction upon individual Salaries.
#Post#: 151455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: Harleking Date: March 23, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I normally quite rate Brian Moore but this article strikes me as
one of the least thought through things I have seen for a while.
The premise seems be that because the salary cap hasn't been
entirely effective in relation to one of its aims- preventing
clubs from going out of business- it should therefore be
regarded as a total failure and scrapped entirely. The fact that
it has actually created a pretty much level playing field with a
different winner every year since sarries started actually
sticking to it appears to be lost on him.
I can tolerate turning up to watch a quins team which are
underperforming, but if the league gets to a point where we are
structurally pretty much unable to even compete then i probably
wont. I know that football gets away with it, but the level of
tribalism there is on a different level.
#Post#: 151456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: T-Bone Date: March 23, 2026, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep, agree with others. Not his finest article and not a very
compelling argument. A few clubs have gone bust despite the cap,
so let's lift it and let several more go bust and just have a
small handful of clubs able to complete and risk alienating a
lot of the existing fanbase. Bizarre really
#Post#: 151457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: Narbia Date: March 23, 2026, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I normally rate Pitbull too, but I don't go along with the point
raised. There's a salary cap of around £6Mn at the moment :
that's already proven too much for one or more former clubs (-
at least in part.)
Intuitively you may want to reduce the cap so that more clubs
can afford to compete, running against the need to pay some top
salaries in a global market. Maybe you'll find an equilibrium
somewhere.
If you raised the cap to say £20 Mn then only one or two clubs
will easily afford it. Raise it to £100 Mn and there's a salary
cap, but in reality there isn't.
And of course, we seem to be ignoring the accumulated debts of
Premiership clubs and current annual deficits - as is.
How many supporters want to pay more per game to pay for this
raised cap? How much more productivity do you get from paying a
player 2 mil versus 1 mil per annum?
Tons of space to come along to watch matches in the Championship
if the Premiership deliberately prices itself out the market. Or
even rugby in the park for nowt.
#Post#: 151478--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: toast Date: March 23, 2026, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No English Salary cap, at a reasonable level, equals more
bankruptcies of clubs
, Simples!
#Post#: 151500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Brian Moore
By: deadlyfrom5yardsout Date: March 24, 2026, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And we're back again with Mark Evans forecast of an European
League for the big boys and a second level for all others.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page