Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:05 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

it was on here or the VT when all the clubs released their accounts, leeds sold a peice of land to put them in profit

Then that's a nonsense - unless they sold it for more than it was valued at.
Your Profit & Loss report doesn't care whether you've £XX worth of cash or £XX worth of fixed assests.
An accountant (which I'm not) may talk about cash profit or something like that, but i think that's more for monitoring your company's postion than end of the day profit.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:46 am  

Jonesy's a Legend wrote:

only another 7 years to go then

Before Leeds win a CC, and can then count themselves amongst the good teams of the SL era.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:19 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I think the essence of it is that the players arnt restricted on what they can earn, the clubs have agreed to stick to a level, this is voluntary, so no laws are broken

It isnt voluntary, the RFL (or Super League ltd) impose sanctions for going above that level.

If it were a case where all chairmen had simply decided to pay up to £1.65m then you would be right, but it isnt. They are forced to do so.

And a player would simply need to prove that his earnings were limited by this to have reason to challenge it. I doubt it would stand up

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:20 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

there is no way that a player could prove that his earnings have been severly reduced due to the salary cap, as there is no restriction on what a player can earn.

UEFA would love to have a salary cap in place - the only reason they dont is that the big clubs would just walk away and set up their own independent Euro Super League.

there clearly is a restriction or we wouldnt have a salary cap

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:22 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

how can they afford it if they only made a slight profit by selling assets? hardly longterm thinking. If a club can make a profit through "normal" business then they may have a case for raising the cap, but any that do barely break even.

the sale of assets did take Leeds into a profit. It was however a one of expenditure (on the Southstand) that took them into a loss

If you discount the one off income of the sale, and the one of expenditure on the southstand. We operated at a profit

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:27 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Yes you do. Your employer will have an amount available to spend on salaries, all companies have restricted money available for salaries. What about companies that have salary bands? The Civil Service for example? Each grade can only earn up to a set amount. If you hit the maximum, you don't get a pay rise unless that maximum is raised, to get a further increase you have to be promoted. You have to change jobs to get a pay increase. Is that restraint of trade?

There is no restriction of trade, nothing is stopping that player signing a contract for the money the club wants to pay. The fact that they either can't afford to pay them more, or simply don't think they are worth it is not a restriction on trade. The fact that the player chooses not to accept a contract because he thinks he is worth more does not constitute a restriction on trade.

When Chris Moyles was offered a reduced salary for his new contract because the BBC were reducing their salary budget, if he had rejected it, would that have been a restraint on trade? No.

for some reason you are comparing a single business operating in an open market to a group of business operating in a restricted market.

People in the civil service have the option of going to do the same job in the private sector for more money. Market forces will judge their worth. Chris Moyles can go work for Sky TV, ITV, or any numer of radio stations, again Market Forces will judge his worth.

An RL player only has a limited number of clubs who have all together limited a players potential for earning. Leon Pryce cant go play for Wigan on a £2m a year deal because Wigan and Saint helens have agreed together to limit wages. Chris Moyles possible earnings at ITV arent limited by what the BBC and ITV have agreed. This is a huge difference

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:30 pm  

On the SC itself.

A salary Cap imo can be a good thing. It can be used to force clubs to do what we want and reward them for doing so.

This SC is rubbish. It doesnt do any of the things it was supposed to and has been an all round failure

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

the sale of assets did take Leeds into a profit. It was however a one of expenditure (on the Southstand) that took them into a loss

If you discount the one off income of the sale, and the one of expenditure on the southstand. We operated at a profit

but maintanence of the ground is on going, but you cant sell your assets more than once.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:45 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

:FRUSRATED: but maintanence of the ground is on going, but you cant sell your assets more than once.

Yes maintenance of the ground is ongoing, but the outlay on the southstand wasnt standard maintenance, it wont be paid out again-ever. It was a one off expenditure

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:03 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

An RL player only has a limited number of clubs who have all together limited a players potential for earning. Leon Pryce cant go play for Wigan on a £2m a year deal because Wigan and Saint helens have agreed together to limit wages. Chris Moyles possible earnings at ITV arent limited by what the BBC and ITV have agreed. This is a huge difference

if Wigan can get a third party sponsor to pay £2m for Leon Pryce's salary then there is no restriction - which is surely a good thing, as it rewards clubs that have strong commercial and business acumen, and stops clubs spending money they dont have.