Aviva Salary Cap. Stay or go?

With all the (lack of??) Information and stories circulating I thought it might be time to explore peoples thoughts on whether or not we should keep the salary case.
Whether you are pro or anti i would like to hear what you want to happen and why.

I'd like to see a vote by the clubs. Personally I'm for it as it means that the league will stay more competitive. I also see it as key to developing the best young talent otherwise you may get a scenario of stockpiling promising young players who don't get the chance to play and fulfill their potential.

I want the salary cap to stay, I also want more openness around the cap.

The cap was introduced for very good reasons - to ensure that pro rugby had a future in England. One of the quid-pro-quos with the cap is that England will not select players who leave the country.

I do not believe that the salary cap - certainly at it's new level - especially hinders any club interested in being a predominantly English club topped up with overseas talent.

I would go soft cap like in the NBA but without all the rules.

Set a salary cap at say 5 million with 500k of exceptions for young players to make it a 5.5 million cap.

Every pound spent over 5.5 million is "luxury taxed." Create bounds so first 500k over you pay equal amount to be distributed to teams beneath the cap, next 500k you pay 1.5x for every pound, etc.  

At the same time assess commercial deals where players get paid via sponsorship. To be done by a group of lawyers/marketers who assess fair value. A bit like what UEFA had to do with the Etihad deal for Man City (a back door to get around FFP in football). Eliminates someone trying to get around paying luxury tax, benefits smaller clubs who lose players to big money through potential compensation via luxury tax and stops all talk of breaching the cap.

Edit: I know the cap goes up over time, but think the 5.5 million is roughly what the AP cap is this year. How you would set the cap number is up to you. Could do NBA again (they do Basketball Related Income) with RRI or overall ticket/TV/sponsorship money divided by 12 (or whatever number of teams there are in future)?

Firm cap, tied to league revenues and administered by a 3rd party body (e.g. the RFU) with power of sanction over offenders and no option to engage lawyers. Clear plan to raise the cap to a level competitive with the French cap over time. Also, pitched at a level to allow adequate cover in squads and rest time for players.

Exceptions/extensions for EPS players, a limited number of marquee players and home-grown talent. Also possibly a win bonus allowance.

The cap is essential to maintain a viable group of clubs for the long term. It's a collective limitation on a spending arms race. I don't like the idea of a soft cap, because backers with deep pockets will always have the option to breach it and gain an advantage.

Personally think that a hard cap is vital. I'm generally against the idea of having just a fine (or tax or settlement) as being the punishment as it just means the rich can do what they want.

Two main reasons why I would keep a cap:
1) To keep the salary gap between the highest and lowest spending clubs to be within a sensible range; maintaining competitiveness.
2) To stop clubs racking up too much debt (or running too high a deficit) in an attempt to compete

So I would have a hard cap that is set so that any member, given the central funding from TV, RFU, league sponsorship, Europe, etc, can, with the addition of reasonable ticket sales and club sponsorship can afford 80% of the cap. Then those with higher revenue can spend put 25% more to make it up to the cap. Therefore, if you want to spend more then you need to improve the league as a whole. I think the NFL split the ticket sales between the home and away sides (weighted to the home side). Not sure about that.

HammerofThunor wrote:Personally think that a hard cap is vital.  I'm generally against the idea of having just a fine (or tax or settlement) as being the punishment as it just means the rich can do what they want.

Two main reasons why I would keep a cap:
1) To keep the salary gap between the highest and lowest spending clubs to be within a sensible range; maintaining competitiveness.
2) To stop clubs racking up too much debt (or running too high a deficit) in an attempt to compete

So I would have a hard cap that is set so that any member, given the central funding from TV, RFU, league sponsorship, Europe, etc, can, with the addition of reasonable ticket sales and club sponsorship can afford 80% of the cap.  Then those with higher revenue can spend put 25% more to make it up to the cap.  Therefore, if you want to spend more then you need to improve the league as a whole.  I think the NFL split the ticket sales between the home and away sides (weighted to the home side). Not sure about that.

Top clubs though are running up debts to get/stay ahead and those getting promoted are all individual cases, if they are low spending with small attendances then need to multiply their spending to stay up it can still happen