Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:58 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

A couple very pertinent points worth commenting on there.

1) is simply not true. The cap is so low in comparison to most big clubs turnover as to have little bearing on their ability to successfully trade as businesses.

2) Is true and a direct result of the cap. It shouldn't have escaped any reasonable person's notice that we had many world class players in the game pre-cap and moreover, were able to attract the cream from Australia (something we are largely unable to do anymore) and Union (something we aren't able to do at all and, worse still, a trend that has now completely reversed). Given the game is still played in the same areas, with some good inroads into the South, Wales and France to boot, the only difference between then and now is the money available to spend on players.

I'm not saying the cap didn't have it's place, neccessarily. Just that it was, and is, badly implemented and kept in place in it's current form by self interest rather than in the interests of the greater good.

1) The cap expenditure is only a part of a club's turnover. If the cap is so low, where are clubs other expenditure that cause them to lose lose money every year?

2) Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. We had a handful of genuine world class players within the game, no more. As for the top Australians; short term deals when our season's didn't coincide was the reason for their appearance over here. Nothing else.

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:21 pm  

If the author of this thread is doing a piece on the SC - the first question you should address is this - is the salary cap legal under EU law- a case could be made by any player that it might constitute a restraint of trade .

theres plenty of pluses and minuses been debated on here but if someone did challenge i cant see how any sporting organisation can mount a robust enough defence- personally my view is that no one in any industry should be subject to such specific restrictitions - and lets face it theres no SC at Red Hall !!!!!

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:10 pm  

If we are asking has it improved the quality of rugby? Then no it has not at all!

How many painfully poor players do we see in super league now and how many overated imports?

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:54 pm  

I don't think it was ever intended to actually improve the rugby, just level out the playing field so we didn't have another 10 years of dominance from one club.

The cap is primarily to save the clubs. People on this thread have said thats wrong as clubs turnover a lot more than the cap limit. Yet they all lose money, so raising the cap would only further increase those losses.

The sport doesn't have enough money, it's as simple as that.

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:11 pm  

It hasn't brought Super League into profit but it has prevented many clubs from going t*ts up!

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:18 pm  

philipk wrote:

If the author of this thread is doing a piece on the SC - the first question you should address is this - is the salary cap legal under EU law- a case could be made by any player that it might constitute a restraint of trade .

theres plenty of pluses and minuses been debated on here but if someone did challenge i cant see how any sporting organisation can mount a robust enough defence- personally my view is that no one in any industry should be subject to such specific restrictitions - and lets face it theres no SC at Red Hall !!!!!

I believe it is legal because it is part of a "league arrangement / agreement" as opposed to the governing body having it as a rule; it is therefore an agreement between the clubs that participate in SL. The other thing to bear in mind is that there is no limit on what a club can play a player. In thoery a club could pay all its salary cap to one player and have the rest of the squad on no money.

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:22 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

I believe it is legal because it is part of a "league arrangement / agreement" as opposed to the governing body having it as a rule; it is therefore an agreement between the clubs that participate in SL. The other thing to bear in mind is that there is no limit on what a club can play a player. In thoery a club could pay all its salary cap to one player and have the rest of the squad on no money.

So there is a limit.
As PK says it would never stand up in court of law.

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:20 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

So there is a limit.
As PK says it would never stand up in court of law.

Let me guess, you don't have a degree in logical thinking?

The club could pay a player £100M if it wanted to, but it would be subject to fines and points deduction etc from SL.
Its nothing at all to do with a players contract; so no limit on that contract.
Limit is club's not players limit.
Limit is SL's not RFL's.
Of course it would stand up in a court of law - why wouldn't it? The club pays the player what it can afford and what it thinks the player is worth. End of.
Nada to do with players contract.

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:54 am  

philipk wrote:

If the author of this thread is doing a piece on the SC - the first question you should address is this - is the salary cap legal under EU law- a case could be made by any player that it might constitute a restraint of trade .

theres plenty of pluses and minuses been debated on here but if someone did challenge i cant see how any sporting organisation can mount a robust enough defence- personally my view is that no one in any industry should be subject to such specific restrictitions - and lets face it theres no SC at Red Hall !!!!!

there is no limit on what a player can earn though.

any club can pay any player upto £1.6m per annum, plus an unlimited amount extra through 3rd party agreements such as that used by Gillette/Saints for Scully.

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:57 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

So there is a limit.
As PK says it would never stand up in court of law.

why has no-one challenged it in a court of law then???