Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:56 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

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.

only if that company has no relationship with the club at all. Which makes it very difficult, nigh on impossible. Which is another poor aspect of this SC.

And if Wigan can afford it, it stops them paying out what they can afford. And neither does it stop them paying out £1.65m if they dont have £1.65m

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:19 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

It was an example of wage restrictions that aren't illegal. The fact that it is a single business (assuming you're talking about the civil service reference) in an open market compared to a group of business operating in a restricted market doesn't matter. If a civil servant wants to do a certain job in that industry his individual wages are capped at a certain level, an RL players is not within that wage budget.

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

RL players can go to the NRL, or they can play RU, there are options there for them. Given there are outside employers available, it isn't as restricted a market as you suggest it is. As you suggest, market forces are at work. If the player does not feel that the wage he is being offered by an RL club is enough, he is free to attempt to improve that wage elsewhere, just like a civil servant going to a private firm. You can't have it both ways, you appear to be suggesting that an RL player shouldn't have to change job for a pay rise, but a civil servant should.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:41 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

only if that company has no relationship with the club at all. Which makes it very difficult, nigh on impossible. Which is another poor aspect of this SC.

like Paul Sculthorpe & Gillette, Iestyn Harris & Reebok (Leeds), Iestyn Harris at Bradford (although not the best example, due to incompentance at the Bulls) amongst many others??

If the player has a high enough profile and the club has good commercial sense they can make it happen without breaking the rules.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:11 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

It was an example of wage restrictions that aren't illegal. The fact that it is a single business (assuming you're talking about the civil service reference) in an open market compared to a group of business operating in a restricted market doesn't matter. If a civil servant wants to do a certain job in that industry his individual wages are capped at a certain level, an RL players is not within that wage budget.

it is the fundemental difference

RL players can go to the NRL, or they can play RU, there are options there for them. Given there are outside employers available, it isn't as restricted a market as you suggest it is. As you suggest, market forces are at work. If the player does not feel that the wage he is being offered by an RL club is enough, he is free to attempt to improve that wage elsewhere, just like a civil servant going to a private firm. You can't have it both ways, you appear to be suggesting that an RL player shouldn't have to change job for a pay rise, but a civil servant should.

Im suggesting an RL player can't. He cant go somewhere else and and be an RL player for more money because all the clubs are under the same salary restrictions.

And it isnt market forces at work because the SC stops that happening. Saying he can go to other sports or to australia is irrelevant. the SC is a fundemental restriction on a player earning his worth as an RL player in this country.

a Civil servant has the opportunity to go into the private sector and do the same job for money. It would be the equivalent of an RL player moving from one RL club to another NOT as you seem to be equating it a move from RL to RU.

The Current rules would equate to a secretary's earnings working for Vodafone being limited to what BT can spend on their Secretaries. And your justification would be to say its OK, this secretary could leave and be a plumber or move to Australia.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:12 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

like Paul Sculthorpe & Gillette, Iestyn Harris & Reebok (Leeds), Iestyn Harris at Bradford (although not the best example, due to incompentance at the Bulls) amongst many others??

If the player has a high enough profile and the club has good commercial sense they can make it happen without breaking the rules.

Yes. Like two people. One of which wasnt allowed. Its obviously not a very successful scheme is it

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:22 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The Current rules would equate to a secretary's earnings working for Vodafone being limited to what BT can spend on their Secretaries. And your justification would be to say its OK, this secretary could leave and be a plumber or move to Australia.

I'm sorry but this simply illustrates how some opponents of a salary cap, particularly some on the Wigan board, do not merely disagree with the argument of many who support the idea of a cap (which would be fair enough) they don't even understand the argument.

Pegging the salary of all mobile phone company secretaries to the same level is simply not the same. You would say that that would hold back a particularly successful company; you would be right. However most who support the idea of cap do not simply look at the competition between individual RL clubs rather the much wider issue of the competition between RL generally and other sports in particular and other leisure activities generally.

A salary cap system at least has the potential to promote competition. Without competition there would be a significant reduction is TV rights payments, sponsorship payments and gate receipts(as the payers would look to spend their money elsewhere). How would the players be paid then?

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:08 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

it is the fundemental difference
Im suggesting an RL player can't. He cant go somewhere else and and be an RL player for more money because all the clubs are under the same salary restrictions.

So one club cannot offer more than another? A club may not be able to offer a multi million pound salary, but who could afford to do that anyway? No RL club in this country could, cap or not.

And it isnt market forces at work because the SC stops that happening. Saying he can go to other sports or to australia is irrelevant. the SC is a fundemental restriction on a player earning his worth as an RL player in this country

a Civil servant has the opportunity to go into the private sector and do the same job for money. It would be the equivalent of an RL player moving from one RL club to another NOT as you seem to be equating it a move from RL to RU.

No it isn't, a civil servant could not do the same job in the private sector, they could be 'an office worker' but then an RL player could be 'a sportsperson'

The Current rules would equate to a secretary's earnings working for Vodafone being limited to what BT can spend on their Secretaries. And your justification would be to say its OK, this secretary could leave and be a plumber or move to Australia.

What? That's bizarre even for you.

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:22 am  

MrSmith wrote:

I'm sorry but this simply illustrates how some opponents of a salary cap, particularly some on the Wigan board, do not merely disagree with the argument of many who support the idea of a cap (which would be fair enough) they don't even understand the argument.

Pegging the salary of all mobile phone company secretaries to the same level is simply not the same. You would say that that would hold back a particularly successful company; you would be right. However most who support the idea of cap do not simply look at the competition between individual RL clubs rather the much wider issue of the competition between RL generally and other sports in particular and other leisure activities generally.

A salary cap system at least has the potential to promote competition. Without competition there would be a significant reduction is TV rights payments, sponsorship payments and gate receipts(as the payers would look to spend their money elsewhere). How would the players be paid then?

whilst clubs working together for the benefit of the game is undoubtedly a good thing, to pretend the clubs arent in competition with each other, then claiming without the competition between the clubs the sport is screwed is very very strange

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:33 am  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

So one club cannot offer more than another? A club may not be able to offer a multi million pound salary, but who could afford to do that anyway? No RL club in this country could, cap or not.

If the cap isnt restricting the amount players are being paid then it is pointless and worthless and cant be a salary cap.

No it isn't, a civil servant could not do the same job in the private sector, they could be 'an office worker' but then an RL player could be 'a sportsperson'

of course they can. A Project manager in the civil service can be a project manager in the Private Sector, An IT director in the civil service can be an IT director in the private sector. Why would you think they wouldnt or why would you think they only be classed as 'office workers'

What? That's bizarre even for you.

it seemed fairly simple. Im surprised it went over your head. You are saying an RL player can seek his worth as an RL player outside the Salary Cap by either not being an RL player or moving to Australia. This would be the same as saying a secretary can seek their worth only by changing professions or moving to Australia.

To put it another way, I certainly wouldnt accept it, if at my next payment review the company i worked for decided to freeze or lower my pay on the basis that they had agreed with every other company who could offer me a similar position that they were going to keep wages down. And i certainly wouldnt accept a justification of, well you could ignore the training and qualifications you spend years getting and go start out in a new role or move to another country

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:28 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If the cap isnt restricting the amount players are being paid then it is pointless and worthless and cant be a salary cap.

It restricts the total amount a club can pay, it does not impose a set limit on an individuals salary. Every company has a set wage budget that it will not go over, that is not regarded as a cap on an individuals ability to earn a salary, yet because there is a well publicised limit in RL it is?

of course they can. A Project manager in the civil service can be a project manager in the Private Sector, An IT director in the civil service can be an IT director in the private sector. Why would you think they wouldnt or why would you think they only be classed as 'office workers'

The majority of people in the civil service are not employed in such specialised roles.

it seemed fairly simple. Im surprised it went over your head. You are saying an RL player can seek his worth as an RL player outside the Salary Cap by either not being an RL player or moving to Australia. This would be the same as saying a secretary can seek their worth only by changing professions or moving to Australia.

It would be if the only people who employed secretaries in the world were based in England and Australia. You are attempting to compare a job which has a very limited worldwide presence to a job that is widespread with a much larger number of employers.

An RL player can only ply his trade as an RL player within England, France (part time or within the English game) or Australia. That is a pretty much it, I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of that.

To put it another way, I certainly wouldnt accept it, if at my next payment review the company i worked for decided to freeze or lower my pay on the basis that they had agreed with every other company who could offer me a similar position that they were going to keep wages down. And i certainly wouldnt accept a justification of, well you could ignore the training and qualifications you spend years getting and go start out in a new role or move to another country

If a company stated that you weren't going to get a pay rise because they had reached the limit of their pay budget, I'm sure they'd be quite happy for you to try and find alternative employment wherever you wished if you didn't like it. If you were employed in a role that only had positions in England or Australia, and you didn't accept an offer from another employer in the UK, then you'd have to 'go start out in a new role or move to another country', whether you accepted that justification or not.