Anthony Seibold wipes Wayne Bennett’s legacy from Red Hill

[Porthoz]

I think Leicester City put a bit of a spanner in the works though with your arguments!

I totally get your points, the big clubs do have an advantage without the salary cap no doubt, but at the same time there are plenty of clubs in that top end bracket with money that compete against each other. You have six clubs in England for example with money to burn, probably 8 if you look at what Wolves and Everton are capable of spending.

Brisbane do have an advantage over other NRL clubs (apart from the rorters ) with our third party deals and other kick backs they get. Couple of the guys I know who have left Brisbane in the last couple of years have commented about how good they had it at Brisbane compared to their current clubs. I know it's not necessarily salary cap related, but the Broncos players have the best of everything, don't think that happens elsewhere.

You can't use an exception to prove a point, come on.

The EPL probably has about 5 clubs at the most who can compete for the title. The power houses such as Man Utd, Liverpool or Arsenal, and the clubs propped up by imense riches from their oligarch owners, like Chelsea and Man City.
Realistically though, with the exception of Leicester, it's really down to Man Utd, Chelsea or Man City for the last 15 years, with clubs with a rich history like Liverpool and Arsenal unable to keep up with the big money of the those 3.

Wolves, Everton and a few other EPL teams can still field reasonably good teams thanks to the unbelievably rich EPL broadcast deal, which allows them to source players from all over Europe, but their fight is really to get into the European competitions, not win the EPL.

In fact, in every single domestic competition, you have at most 3 teams vying for the title, simply because they have far more money than the rest of their country's teams. Look at Germany (Bayern or Dortmund), Italy (Juventus, Milan or Inter), Spain (Barcelona or Real Madrid), Portugal (Porto or Benfica), Netherlands (Ajax, PSV or occasionally Feyenoord), etc...

The advantages the Broncos undoubtedly have, do give them a bit of a leg up, but nothing compared to being able to spend 10x more than Sharks, Cowboys or Tits on players, and definitely not the expectation to be in the GF every second or third year.

But I presume you understand why Newcastle have spent so much less that chelsea

Put it the other way around. Why did Chelsea spend so much more than Newcastle?

 

[Cult]

Can anyone actually deny that the broncos have higher expectations than most other clubs though?

 

[Big Pete]

Can anyone actually deny that the broncos have higher expectations than most other clubs though?

Anthony Griffin.

 

[Cult]

Anthony Griffin.

We competed in 2011 (3rd)
We were expected to compete in 2012
We missed the finals in 2013
Anthony Griffin was replaced in 2014

We were still expected to perform and the fans expected more from us. Nobody is saying we always meet the expectations but people (Even opposition fans) are shocked and surprised if we don't.

 

[Big Pete]

Right, which is why it was odd that Griffin was still able to keep his job after 2013. If the Brisbane Broncos were serious about meeting those expectations, they would have fired Griffin after that disasterous season.

Still, if rumours are to be believed, there were some members of the board who wanted Griffin to stay on in 2015.

 

[Cult]

Right, which is why it was odd that Griffin was still able to keep his job after 2013. If the Brisbane Broncos were serious about meeting those expectations, they would have fired Griffin after that disasterous season.

Still, if rumours are to be believed, there were some members of the board who wanted Griffin to stay on in 2015.

Which proves the point that is being argued. Griffin wasn't given any slack by the fans because most of us wanted him gone after that season. If Seibold has a similar season he will receive similar criticism. No Broncos coach deserves or is ever going to get a year of slack because we are expected to be competitive.

 

[Big Pete]

I had a feeling we weren't on the same page. I wasn't talking about the fans, I was talking about the organisation.

 

[Wolfie]

You can't use an exception to prove a point, come on.

The EPL probably has about 5 clubs at the most who can compete for the title. The power houses such as Man Utd, Liverpool or Arsenal, and the clubs propped up by imense riches from their oligarch owners, like Chelsea and Man City.
Realistically though, with the exception of Leicester, it's really down to Man Utd, Chelsea or Man City for the last 15 years, with clubs with a rich history like Liverpool and Arsenal unable to keep up with the big money of the those 3.

Wolves, Everton and a few other EPL teams can still field reasonably good teams thanks to the unbelievably rich EPL broadcast deal, which allows them to source players from all over Europe, but their fight is really to get into the European competitions, not win the EPL.

In fact, in every single domestic competition, you have at most 3 teams vying for the title, simply because they have far more money than the rest of their country's teams. Look at Germany (Bayern or Dortmund), Italy (Juventus, Milan or Inter), Spain (Barcelona or Real Madrid), Portugal (Porto or Benfica), Netherlands (Ajax, PSV or occasionally Feyenoord), etc...

The advantages the Broncos undoubtedly have, do give them a bit of a leg up, but nothing compared to being able to spend 10x more than Sharks, Cowboys or Tits on players, and definitely not the expectation to be in the GF every second or third year.


Put it the other way around. Why did Chelsea spend so much more than Newcastle?

Tbf i do agree with you as well that being the richest and best run club in the comp does see us hamstrung in some ways with a salary cap. Dont thin as Cult said it changes the expectations we have though.

You would be pretty naive to think we dont use our financial clout to give us an advantage when it comes to player recruitment in ways that arent on the books, and you only have to look at our facilities to see we are streets ahead of every other Rugby league team in the world let alone Australia. As a Broncos fan, i expect us to challenge every single year. I dont think its unreasonable to think thats whats expected from board level as well. We arent in the game to be also rans, otherwise we wouldn't invest so much into the club. My original point though was never really about financial clout as such anyway, it was about whats expected of a leading club, and Brisbane are without question one of the leading clubs in the NRL. ITs kind of got off track with the premier league talk! Which brings me to my next points!

In regards to Chelsea, they spent so much more than Newcastle because the owner of Newcastle, Mike Ashley, doesnt want the club anymore, wont invest any more money into it than the bare minimum and is looking to sell. I'd guess Newcastle would be in the bottom 3 spenders in the premier league right now.

Not sure if you watch a great deal of premier league football ( for the record, i do, its my main sport to watch ) but i think you are way off with what you think some of these clubs are spending. From the top of my head, Fulham, one place from the bottom of the league, have spent more than Man City, Arsenal and Spurs, as have Wolves, Bournemouth, Everton, Leicester and probably a lot of others ( i could research it, but im not sure i can be bothered! ). Liverpool have also easily been able to keep up with the spending of the big clubs. I'd guess apart from Chelsea nobody has spent more than them in the last few years than Liverpool. In financial terms, the premier league isnt a closed shop in terms of clubs spending power anymore, and that includes wages. Look at Wolves for example, they are owned by the Fosun group, probably the second richest owners in the premier league behind Sheik Mansour at City and i'd say they are primed to break into the top six if they recruit well if not higher. The big thing that holds back teams in the Premier league from recruiting the best players isnt money, its league position. Generally, if your club plays in the champions league, they have an edge in terms of recruitment.

The other leagues are a bit more difficult to crack for teams due to a lot of reasons i could go into but i dont think i will, not on this thread anyway, but the main one is probably a lot of politics.

 

[Porthoz]

Tbf i do agree with you as well that being the richest and best run club in the comp does see us hamstrung in some ways with a salary cap. Dont thin as Cult said it changes the expectations we have though.

You would be pretty naive to think we dont use our financial clout to give us an advantage when it comes to player recruitment in ways that arent on the books, and you only have to look at our facilities to see we are streets ahead of every other Rugby league team in the world let alone Australia. As a Broncos fan, i expect us to challenge every single year. I dont think its unreasonable to think thats whats expected from board level as well. We arent in the game to be also rans, otherwise we wouldn't invest so much into the club. My original point though was never really about financial clout as such anyway, it was about whats expected of a leading club, and Brisbane are without question one of the leading clubs in the NRL. ITs kind of got off track with the premier league talk! Which brings me to my next points!

In regards to Chelsea, they spent so much more than Newcastle because the owner of Newcastle, Mike Ashley, doesnt want the club anymore, wont invest any more money into it than the bare minimum and is looking to sell. I'd guess Newcastle would be in the bottom 3 spenders in the premier league right now.

Not sure if you watch a great deal of premier league football ( for the record, i do, its my main sport to watch ) but i think you are way off with what you think some of these clubs are spending. From the top of my head, Fulham, one place from the bottom of the league, have spent more than Man City, Arsenal and Spurs, as have Wolves, Bournemouth, Everton, Leicester and probably a lot of others ( i could research it, but im not sure i can be bothered! ). Liverpool have also easily been able to keep up with the spending of the big clubs. I'd guess apart from Chelsea nobody has spent more than them in the last few years than Liverpool. In financial terms, the premier league isnt a closed shop in terms of clubs spending power anymore, and that includes wages. Look at Wolves for example, they are owned by the Fosun group, probably the second richest owners in the premier league behind Sheik Mansour at City and i'd say they are primed to break into the top six if they recruit well if not higher. The big thing that holds back teams in the Premier league from recruiting the best players isnt money, its league position. Generally, if your club plays in the champions league, they have an edge in terms of recruitment.

The other leagues are a bit more difficult to crack for teams due to a lot of reasons i could go into but i dont think i will, not on this thread anyway, but the main one is probably a lot of politics.

I've been following European football for 50 years. I grew up with it, played it, and went to more live games there than NRL games here.
The EPL is a bit of different beast from all other leagues due to the obscene amount of money it generates, but the principle is the same, and I am not in the habit of making claims I can't back up. These are the EPL salary figures for 2017 (2018 are not officially out yet):

1- Man City: £265m
2- Man Utd: £264m
3- Chelsea: £221m
4- Liverpool: £208m
5- Arsenal: £199m

Then there is a significant drop to the next rung in terms of salaries, and already at half the amount of the top:

6- Tottenham: £128m
7- Leicester: £113m
8- Southampton: £112m
9- Everton: £105m
10- Swansea: £99m

Lowest:

17- Bournemouth: £72m
18- Middlesbrough: £65m
19 & 20- Hull and Burnley: £61m

Wanna know what the final ladder that year looked like?

1- Chelsea (Champions with 93 pts)
2- Tottenham Hotspur (86 pts) (well done to them, really!)
3- Manchester City (78 pts)
4- Liverpool (76 pts)
5- Arsenal (75 pts)
6- Manchester United (69 pts)
7- Everton (61 pts)
8- Southampton (46 pts)
9- Bournemouth (46 pts)
10- West Bromwich Albion (45 pts)
11- West Ham United (45 pts)
12- Leicester City (44 pts)
13- Stoke City (44 pts)
14- Crystal Palace (41 pts)
15- Swansea City (41 pts)
16- Burnley (40 pts)
17- Watford (40 pts)
18- Hull City (Relegated on 34 pts)
19- Middlesbrough (Relegated on 28 pts)
20- Sunderland (Relegated on 24 pts)

That's more than correlation right there, because not only do you have top spenders finish at the top of the ladder, you have bottom spenders finishing at the bottom of the ladder. And this picture repeats itself over the years, it's not just one statistical abnormality. In most other countries, the differences are much bigger even, because they don't benefit from a massive broacast deal.

Of course, it's true that a player will chose Man Utd over Fullham, but only if the pay is similar or slightly less. No way a player takes half the salary on offer at West Ham so he can play at Chelsea. However, it's more likely he will get at least the same amount of money, probably more.

And that would be the case with the Broncos over the Cowboys, Titans or Raiders, to name a few, if they were able to table competitive offers for any player they want, instead of being limited to do that very selectively by a salary cap meant to equalise the value of each NRL team's roster, which is how Souffs, Cows and the drug cheats were able to win a premiership in the last 5 years.

 

[Wolfie]

It's a bit misleading with clubs like Chelsea it terms of salary because of the size of their squad, it's massive. To get a true picture you would need the salaries of the 30 man squad used in the Premier league, not the whole squad. They have about 55 players out on loan, so their squad is about 85 players, which is ridiculous, nobody else would have a squad that size. Also, Spurs are spending less as they have just paid a billion pounds for a new stadium, Things like that have an effect.

The accounts of all clubs in England came out the other day for 2018 for FFP so there should be data out there, it's just probably not all in one place.

The spending you mentioned also is only salary. I was making the point in regards to the premier league that the gap is now closing both in terms of what players are being paid and especially transfer fees. It's going to come down to who coaches their teams better in the next few years as I believe as the financial gap is shrinking and the top four sides are going to become a top eight.

Just out of curiosity who are you team? My username should probably give mine away!

 

[Swiss pete]

It's a bit misleading with clubs like Chelsea it terms of salary because of the size of their squad, it's massive. To get a true picture you would need the salaries of the 30 man squad used in the Premier league, not the whole squad. They have about 55 players out on loan, so their squad is about 85 players, which is ridiculous, nobody else would have a squad that size. Also, Spurs are spending less as they have just paid a billion pounds for a new stadium, Things like that have an effect.

The accounts of all clubs in England came out the other day for 2018 for FFP so there should be data out there, it's just probably not all in one place.

The spending you mentioned also is only salary. I was making the point in regards to the premier league that the gap is now closing both in terms of what players are being paid and especially transfer fees. It's going to come down to who coaches their teams better in the next few years as I believe as the financial gap is shrinking and the top four sides are going to become a top eight.

Just out of curiosity who are you team? My username should probably give mine away!

I worked 1971-72 in Leicester and been a fan ever since. Watched many games at filbert street . Got frustrated at my team, to loose every talented player to the big clubs.
Having said that, I like our salary cap system.But believe we need relegation and promotion ASAP. Also division 1 should have 14 teams to play each other twice. Second division to play off for promotion.
IMO the only ones against, are the mediocre Sydney teams afraid of relegation.

 

[Eta Carinae]

It's a bit misleading with clubs like Chelsea it terms of salary because of the size of their squad, it's massive. To get a true picture you would need the salaries of the 30 man squad used in the Premier league, not the whole squad. They have about 55 players out on loan, so their squad is about 85 players, which is ridiculous, nobody else would have a squad that size. Also, Spurs are spending less as they have just paid a billion pounds for a new stadium, Things like that have an effect.

The accounts of all clubs in England came out the other day for 2018 for FFP so there should be data out there, it's just probably not all in one place.

The spending you mentioned also is only salary. I was making the point in regards to the premier league that the gap is now closing both in terms of what players are being paid and especially transfer fees. It's going to come down to who coaches their teams better in the next few years as I believe as the financial gap is shrinking and the top four sides are going to become a top eight.

Just out of curiosity who are you team? My username should probably give mine away!

You missed the point. If you want to be credible, you can't compare European soccer where there is no salary cap to the NRL.

Just out of curiosity, I stated clearly Seibold should be allowed one mediocre season, about the same as last season. It's hard to define but lets say we finish 4 points out of the top 4 then narrowly lose in the first week of the finals. That would be about the same as last season. You rejected that idea. So, if this season is about as successful as last season (mediocre), you would be in favor of Seibolds sacking?

 

[Wolfie]

You missed the point. If you want to be credible, you can't compare European soccer where there is no salary cap to the NRL.

Just out of curiosity, I stated clearly Seibold should be allowed one mediocre season, about the same as last season. It's hard to define but lets say we finish 4 points out of the top 4 then narrowly lose in the first week of the finals. That would be about the same as last season. You rejected that idea. So, if this season is about as successful as last season (mediocre), you would be in favor of Seibolds sacking?

Actually I can and be credible, because I was comparing the stature of those clubs and their expectations Reyter, others bought in salary caps.

You are also presuming I agree with you that last year was mediocre, which I also said after thinking about it I don't think it was mediocre, I think it was inconsistent. My opinion on Seibold is if the squad is mostly fit, I'd expect him to better what we did last year with our roster. If he can't, I'd be asking questions. I certainly don't think he should be cut any slack for underachievement.

 

[Porthoz]

I doubt there will be a "Top 8" any time soon, and given we're talking about the salary cap, I've put down the salary load of each club. If we were looking at each club's financial turnaround including player transfer costs, the differences would be even starker.
You cannot compare expectations of clubs which only limitation is how deep their pockets are, with a club limited by an equalising salary cap, it's apples and oranges.

I don't really have a team in the UK, but have some sympathy towards the Gunners and West Ham for different reasons. I also kinda follow your team, since you've been dipping quite a bit in the Porto pound (my club).

P.S. Hate Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea with a passion btw... they're the Rorters, Cronulla and Manly of the EPL for me.

 

[Eta Carinae]

I doubt there will be a "Top 8" any time soon, and given we're talking about the salary cap, I've put down the salary load of each club. If we were looking at each club's financial turnaround including player transfer costs, the differences would be even starker.
You cannot compare expectations of clubs which only limitation is how deep their pockets are, with a club limited by an equalising salary cap, it's apples and oranges.

I don't really have a team in the UK, but have some sympathy towards the Gunners and West Ham for different reasons. I also kinda follow your team, since you've been dipping quite a bit in the Porto pound (my club).

P.S. Hate Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea with a passion btw... they're the Rorters, Cronulla and Manly of the EPL for me.

I'm not really familiar with UK soccer clubs but in the NRL, Manly are a basket case. One of if not the poorest club in the competition, playing out of a cow paddock which they can usually fill to around 30-35% of capacity. If it weren't for the salary cap, the only team competing with them for the spoon would be the Shonkies.

 

[winslow_wong]

Format c:\wayne\legacy

 

[Wolfie]

I doubt there will be a "Top 8" any time soon, and given we're talking about the salary cap, I've put down the salary load of each club. If we were looking at each club's financial turnaround including player transfer costs, the differences would be even starker.
You cannot compare expectations of clubs which only limitation is how deep their pockets are, with a club limited by an equalising salary cap, it's apples and oranges.

I don't really have a team in the UK, but have some sympathy towards the Gunners and West Ham for different reasons. I also kinda follow your team, since you've been dipping quite a bit in the Porto pound (my club).

P.S. Hate Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea with a passion btw... they're the Rorters, Cronulla and Manly of the EPL for me.

I never actually made any reference initially to the salary cap initially, that was bought into it by others. I basically said big, high profile clubs have big expectations and there is pressure there on the head coach, and then after the salary cap got bought in i said that wouldn't change the expectations of a club like Real Madrid or Man United, they would still expect success and thats exactly the same with the Broncos. I dont think that statement is incorrect, a bit like Man United, even if you dont like Brisbane, you recognise they are the biggest club in the NRL. Salary cap or not, there is pressure for clubs like that basically.

I can quite easily see a top eight in the premier league quite honestly. Probably not a top eight where they are all title challengers, but a top eight that are a level about the other teams in the league. The current top six have pretty much been better than everyone else for quite a while. I think Wolves and Everton if they spend well will be up there with the likes of Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal. I think United will challenge again next year along with Man City and Liverpool. Wolves and Everton have the potential, financial clout and history to be major players in England again. I actually wouldnt be surprised to see Spurs and Arsenal start to slip a bit.

 

[Huge]

Format c:\wayne\legacy

?