Harlequins prop Mark Lambert defends English salary cap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17688927

Harlequins forward Mark Lambert does not believe the English salary cap should be an excuse for defeats in European competition. The London side were one of four English sides to fall at the quarter-final stages of the Heineken Cup or the Amlin Challenge Cup.

He told BBC London 94.9: "It does have an impact to a certain extent, in terms of depth of squads. But it's very easy to see it as a knee-jerk reaction to one season."
The 27-year-old added: "If it's something that continues for three or four years it might become a more obvious issue. But I think there is a huge amount of strength in English rugby."

"There are English clubs that have had big results in Europe this season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, this time next year, there are a few teams involved in the late stages of European competitions."

The salary cap for clubs in the Aviva Premiership currently stands at £4m, and Lambert believes that keeping that figure is an important step to maintaining an even playing field in domestic competition.

"I'm not a money man but I think given the economic situation of a lot of teams, you need some regulation," the prop continued. "If it's a free-for-all, you wouldn't see the competitive nature of the Premiership as it has been in the last few years. "You'd begin to see a gulf between those who have the money and those who don't."

Not everyone is whining and making excuses. Of course if the top clubs had more room Lambert probably wouldn't have a job at a decent club

I agree with the people who'd like to see the cap become based on a % of total income rather then a set figure. Obviously it would need a ceiling but it would help the bigger clubs in Europe while still keeping the prem honest.

And yes Mark's probably slightly biased about keeping it!

I think its having a BIG BIG impact on the clubs using the academy players instead of average jo journeymen.

And the knock on is the youngsters will get stronger and stronger as will Englands clubs challenge in Europe and ultimately England internationally.

Let the french clubs buy everyone and spend rediculous money...but its not gonna do their national team any good!!

The biggest problem with the French money is that it inflates wages. Loyalty becomes more important. Academy players would be more loyal to the club that developed them, if given the opportunities. Steve Diamond was just talking about the Sale academy going from 16 kids to 90-odd in a few years.

Wage inflation is rampant and not just caused by French clubs. The problem with hard caps is that if you are spending up to it then you have no wiggle room and lose players you would rather keep.


For example Ben Youngs signed a full pro contract a couple of years ago on graduating from the academy and it was relatively low. In the meantime he becomes an England international and last spring Saints came sniffing and offered him a huge amount. He stays with tigers on a lower amount, but much higher than his previous contract (fair enough). To afford this in the cap we have to release Dan Hipkiss. Similar situations have played out with other born and bred tigers players (such as Lewis Moody, Sam Vesty etc).

Often these players are replaced by "journeymen" but on much lower salaries. Julian Salvi is on about half the salary Tigers were paying Moody for instance.

This year Gloucester offered 36 more money than we could afford to offer and stay within the cap while Saints came snooping around for George Ford. We could only afford to keep one of them and stay within the cap. 36 may have gone any way for the "guaranteed" starting berth, but still it is a player the club developed that has been lost.

Thankfully we have a pretty good academy (current academy has produced a clean sweep of 5 wins over International age group sides) and do keep producing players but when other clubs offer big money for them, you can't expect the player to say no thanks, I will stay here for a pittance.

BUT

The cap is already at a level that most sides cannot afford without incurring debts. i believe that more than half the AP sides spent up to the cap last year. Most of them incurring debt to do so.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think its having a BIG BIG impact on the clubs using the academy players instead of average jo journeymen.

And the knock on is the youngsters will get stronger and stronger as will Englands clubs challenge in Europe and ultimately England internationally.

Let the french clubs buy everyone and spend rediculous money...but its not gonna do their national team any good!!

I completely agree. English rugby can either try to match the French approach (having said that, I can't see any English side who could afford to spend more than a couple of hundred £K above the current cap without making a loss in which case it's going to need lots of wealthy beneficators willing to chuck loads of money away), or it can stick with what it is doing which is gradually injecting more and more talented young players into the system - players who will eventually benefit both the national side and the clubs.

Whilst Clemont were beating Sarries (with 33 and 35 year old locks from Canada and Australia) the English u18 side were completing an unbeaten season. The French system looks unsustainable to me. English rugby should keep the cap and work on growing income so the cap can rise to retain the talent which is now working its way through. This should be gradual, and if we struggle for a couple of years in Europe in the meantime that's better than having a couple of sides that compete largely using foreign players and the rest of the AP either risking bankrupcy or just making up the numbers in the league.

Room within the cap for ex-academy players and RFU money for more EQ players would hopefully help clubs retain young players.

Interesting Diamond was on RugbyClub last night and claimed Sale needed to average around 8000 to break even. He also made a little dig saying it's because they actually adhere to the cap. Whether this is true or not is interesting

8,000 would not give enough money to afford the cap.

Lambert is right. It is just a knee jerk reaction by the media.

Lets look at the factes.

Edinburgh have qualified for the Semi's and their budget is less than probably 3 of the Irish sides, 3 of the Welsh sides, 8 of the English sides, and probably around 11 of the French sides (if not more).

In truth the issue becomes more complex. For example Scotland, Ireland, Wales & Italy dont have to worry about relegation so dont have the pressure there to worry about. Also the playing pools are far more condensed. They are basically filled with their own countries internationals and aspiring young talent. Looking at Irish provinces the movements between players is probably noticble as they only add a couple of players each season and largly keep hold of the bulk of their squads. Its noticble that some of the stars of that league have represented the same side for 10 years or more in most cases.

The English league on the other hand does not have this luxury. Englands best players are spread around 12 teams (this includes the most talented youngsters as well). So in order for them to compete they need to bring in Foreigners in order for them to compete. Yes they are losing that fight at the moment to the French which was actually the other way around 10 years ago when the English Premiership had some of the best players in it.
Similar to France relegation while adding to the excitement of the league does not help them in Europe in my view. That said its more extreme in France as they always relegate 3 unlike in England where that is only 1 side and thats if the newly promoted side meets the criteria (which is not guranteed).

The truth is that to win the HC you actually need a bit of luck, Massive amounts of teams spirit, a style your players can identify with an perform under pressure. Also home advantage is massive but only if you have the support (atmosphere) to really drive it home.

The margins of being the best in Europe are so small its not worth worrying about. Needless to say just to qualify for the last 8 is a hard task in itself these days as sides are getting better.

I do think that if your squads change to regularly and if the foreigners that come into dont buy into the ethos of the club your on to a losing battle.

P.S. Its not all doom and gloom btw. France have it worse. With all the signings that are rocking up over there that cannot play for France and given they play stupid amounts of rugby without resting players its bound to hurt them internationally in the long run. Also they relly so heavily on backing that if sponsorship falls through teams go to the wall. Its not a sound business model as Stade have already demonstrated.

Welshmushroom don't bring Edinburgh into this.

Their auto qualification to the HC every year means they have the luxury of extra revenue and can pour all their resources into one competition.

11th in the Pro12 doesn't point to a side that cares a lot about that competition.

The most impressive side are Clermont who are showing they can indeed fight on two fronts but just look at their squad.

Of course Edinburgh should be brought into this. This is a thread based on budget. I already stated that teams in the Pro 12 can field squads how they choose. Edinburgh are one of those sides. So people being overplayed is an issue more so than the salary cap and thats my point.

I appreciate your are a staunch Saracens fan and probably aggree with your clubs view on the Salary cap being a hinderance, keep in mind you can only field 15 players in any one game.

Your implying that Clermont beat you because they had a stronger roster is papering over the cracks. The reality is on paper they just have a much better 15 than Saracens. Its the same with Leinster as well at the moment whose 15 looks darn good right about now.

Squad strength only comes into it when injuries come into play.

BTW I'm still waiting on an apology on my HC view thread. You did seem to dismiss me rather arrogantly when i posted my Saracens vs Clermont prediction. I appreciate your a fan but i was just giving my neutral take on the result (as i dont have a vested interest in either) which was the correct one and has rightly installed Clermont as front runners (along with Leinster for the tournament). I wasnt having a go at Saracens quality just stating that clearly Leinster and Clermont are in a league of their own at the moment.

With the players that are coming through in the top English sides, on top of a good 6N's and no RWC I think next seasons Heineken tournament will give us the truest reflection of where English clubs stand.

This season has been an interesting building block for many sides and a chance for them to work on their flaws and get used to the pressures of the top European tournament.

I have a feeling Leicester, Quins, Glos, Saracens and Saints will all be far more competative next year.

Agreed, several English sides should be a bit stronger in the HC next season.

Sarries lost on the day because they were pummelled in the scrum for the first 30 minutes and (now Brits has been worked out) just didn't have any ball carriers in the pack or line breakers in the backs. They looked better when George, Vunipola, Kruis and Wray came on. The Farrell at 13 experiment has now surely run its course. Next season, with the English forwards getting more starts and with a proper 13 they will be a better side.

As an aside, I'm pleased Farrell turned down England - I think as an attack coach he still has a lot to learn.

Definitely Dave, he still needs to learn things like why his son isn't a 13 or even a particularly good 12 and if you're not going to play him at 10 then bench him.

I know no one has commented for a few days but would it be better to bring in a max wage limit for players. If you can get the best for £x then it will self regulate as you won't pay the same for a lower player. If you bring in a Euro max wage limit it would fix it better then removing or incrreasing the cap.

In football there are still clubs like arsenal that have a wage structure. IF all clubs kept it it would help everyone. If clubs want to pay 30 players the top wage they could but logic and business sayes they wouldn't

Edinburgh income is almost certaintly less than the top half of the English league let alone the French.

I didn't see Clermont v Saracens - did Saracens really get pummelled in the scrum

The Clermont scrum has been poor since Christmas just about everyone has been getting the better of them. THey have been winning inspite of their scrum not because of it.

Stevens is bad in the scrum. Always has been. It looked stronger when Vunipola went on.

I would have said that Edinburgh were paying a lot less but then I would have said the same about the regions. But their cap of £3.5M for Europe team has apparently caused problems so they certainly can't be that far off. I'd wait to see figures before making up my mind.

Brendan, how do you deal with exchange rate changes, etc? And deal with cost of living, etc? A pan-Europe wage limit isn't practical and will never happen.

I know I deal with exchange rate every day for work.

It would be though to do.

If the did the wages structure in England eg no play is paid over say 250k or whatever and that wages couldn't be more then 80% or something of last years turnover it might help.

The problem I see with the Wage cap is not the figure but the lack or taking risk as you will always take a known player who can do a job then two possiblity players who could be rubbish and use up funds.

Removing the problem of having wages that have to perform might help.

Having wages as a % of tunover stops people from loaning lots of money as they would have to give it to count as turnover.

I just wanted to make a point about the myth that playing pools being more condensed in the Celtic countries than in England. The opposite is actually true. It is starting to bug me that people seem to take this as a fact.

Ireland for example has four professional teams for a population of six million. If England had the same proportion of teams they would have at least 32 professional sides, four for every six million people in the country.

If you take it from the point of view of male player numbers rather than Ireland has four professional teams for every 131000 male players. England has ten times that number so proportionally should have forty pro teams! That is if it had the same ratio of clubs to players. England has fewer pro teams per head of population or per player than Ireland, Wales or Scotland.

I got my figures from the IRB website.

I would also like to point out the myth of how many people play the game in england.

Each country decides their own method of calulating this number. The RFU (to exagerate the number and increase funding from the Govt) include every registered member of an affiliated club.

that means that in my immediate family we have 4 adult males who actually count as 10 people in those stats:

My father (67 member of two clubs in hertfordshire)
My younger brother (42 member of 3 clubs, Leicestershire, Shropshire and Cambridgeshire)
My eldest Nephew (16 member of two clubs in Hertfordshire and Cambrdgeshire - plus his school)
Me (member of 3 clubs in Bedfordshire, North London and East London)

While my brother and I have on occassion turned out for 7s or in Vets sides (those we are not too young for) along with my dad we cannot really count as players.

Intotouch wrote:I just wanted to make a point about the myth that playing pools being more condensed in the Celtic countries than in England. The opposite is actually true. It is starting to bug me that people seem to take this as a fact.

Ireland for example has four professional teams for a population of six million. If England had the same proportion of teams they would have at least 32 professional sides, four for every six million people in the country.

If you take it from the point of view of male player numbers rather than Ireland has four professional teams for every 131000 male players. England has ten times that number so proportionally should have forty pro teams! That is if it had the same ratio of clubs to players. England has fewer pro teams per head of population or per player than Ireland, Wales or Scotland.

I got my figures from the IRB website.

I think you may have misunderstood the point (at least from my point of view). The best Irish players are generally at one of the 3 top provinces (you could almost say 2 but I think Ulster will be contributing more and more over the next few years). The players play and train together week in and week out all year long. The work with a maximum of 3 coaching set-ups and tactics. It about the top professional player pool not the part-time or past it players.

In England the top professional player pool is spread around all 12 teams. You generally have guys focused on a few teams but there are players at all clubs that could/should be in the EPS. So for the EPS for 2012 we had Bath, Leicester, Northampton, Wasps, Saracens, Irish, Harlequins and Gloucester (plus Stade Francais and Scarlets) with Sale, Exeter and Worcester players in the saxons. So only Newcastle didn't have any players in either squad (all their best players are nicked by others). So that's 10 different teams the EPS came from, each with their own tactics and coaching on top of the fact the players aren't used to each other.

I think the problem in the premership is that there are two many middle teams.

Everyone I think would agree that Newscastle expect the last month each year are rubbish and then in the last month win and stay up.

The big three of Tigers, Sares and Saints are the best in one or two each year pushing.

This year it is Exeter and Quins, Last year was Glaws and Bath Next year could be Quins and Sale who knows.

Point is that their are reasonably 8 teams that all fight it out for the Saxons and England bench elcuding local players.

This drives up their price so the middle teams play more for average then anywhere else.

Ireland you play for your local or you move abroard so no real price wars

Wales have you play for your local or you move to Os Cardiff or aboard and Soctland it is local or aboard.

As you can see England are the only ones who have to really compette so even though they have more players they pay way more for them then and Irish would for the same player