Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:03 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

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?

No, every company has a budget which they set themselves. Not an arbitrary amount set by an outside body

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

well if they were office juniors then they could go elsewhere to be an office junior. There are very few jobs which are solely civil service with no equivalent private sector opportunity

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.

Dont be silly. That clearly isnt the point being made and only a fool would think they could convince people it was.

It doesnt matter where else in the world a secretary can go work. It doesnt alter the fact their employment here is restricted.

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.

No, i wouldnt. I would have legal right to redress as what they would be doing would be illegal. The company i work for, cannot operate as a cartel and restrict my right to seek my worth with another company. Which is what the SC does.

If a club reaches its budget and decideds not to spend anymore - fine. When that budget is then applied to another company, restricting them in offering the market worth to a prospective employee - It isnt.

However much you try to equate them, The SC and a clubs budget isnt the same. The SC is a restriction imposed on the clubs, and it isnt a gentlemans agreement-it is an enforceable rule under the terms in which the clubs are forced to operate.

In any other industry this cap would be ruled illegal immediately-there would barely be an argument. However there is provision for sport to be treated differently. The only question would be whether or not those provisions reach that far to protect the clubs

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No, every company has a budget which they set themselves. Not an arbitrary amount set by an outside body

The point still stands that an individual can be paid whatever the club thinks they are worth within that budget, there is not a cap on an individuals pay bar that of the clubs budget for wages.

well if they were office juniors then they could go elsewhere to be an office junior. There are very few jobs which are solely civil service with no equivalent private sector opportunity

I'm going to end this one here, it has progressed to a point that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Dont be silly. That clearly isnt the point being made and only a fool would think they could convince people it was.

You brought it up. Why do so if it wasn't the point being made?

It doesnt matter where else in the world a secretary can go work. It doesnt alter the fact their employment here is restricted.

Again, that is an point you brought up.

No, i wouldnt. I would have legal right to redress as what they would be doing would be illegal. The company i work for, cannot operate as a cartel and restrict my right to seek my worth with another company. Which is what the SC does.

They aren't. If your company offers you £100k and you don't want it, then there is nothign to stop another club offering anything above that within their pay structure. If a club wanted to pay a player £1.5 million and the rest of the squad £100k between them, they could. Nothing in the rules stop them doing that. Your worth is what the employers say you are worth, not what you think you are worth.

If a club reaches its budget and decideds not to spend anymore - fine. When that budget is then applied to another company, restricting them in offering the market worth to a prospective employee - It isnt.

Again, nothing stops a club offering what it thinks that players market worth is.

However much you try to equate them, The SC and a clubs budget isnt the same. The SC is a restriction imposed on the clubs, and it isnt a gentlemans agreement-it is an enforceable rule under the terms in which the clubs are forced to operate.

The salary cap gives a club a wage budget to work with, but isn't a clubs wage budget?

In any other industry this cap would be ruled illegal immediately-there would barely be an argument. However there is provision for sport to be treated differently. The only question would be whether or not those provisions reach that far to protect the clubs

Any other industry wouldn't need such strict regulations to join it. I couldn't decide to create a team and play professional RL tomorrow. Is that a restriction of trade? It is more a restriction than the cap is.

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:44 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

The point still stands that an individual can be paid whatever the club thinks they are worth within that budget, there is not a cap on an individuals pay bar that of the clubs budget for wages.

there is, its called the salary cap. By the very definition of its name, it is a Cap on Salaries. The fact this Cap treats players salaries as a whole rather than singularly is irrelevant. It still caps what players can earn, both individually and collectively

I'm going to end this one here, it has progressed to a point that has nothing to do with the discussion.

only because of your pedantry

You brought it up. Why do so if it wasn't the point being made?

I didnt, it was simply part of an example where you chose to focus on the pedantry rather than the point being made

Again, that is an point you brought up.

yes, i did. I said it. I said that a secretary can go to another country but this doesnt affect the fact their employment would be restricted here. I did make that point

They aren't. If your company offers you £100k and you don't want it, then there is nothign to stop another club offering anything above that within their pay structure. If a club wanted to pay a player £1.5 million and the rest of the squad £100k between them, they could. Nothing in the rules stop them doing that. Your worth is what the employers say you are worth, not what you think you are worth.

yes, and the Salary Cap stops this worth being found. There is nothing to stop a club (or all clubs) simply operating to a budget of £1.65m. The problem is the fact they operating together to do so. This stops them paying players what they think they are worth on the open market. The Salary Cap not only restricts a players earning potential individually but collectively.

And you seem to be missing the obvious point that if a club already has £1.5m in contracts, it then limits a players earnings to £150k. And if the club has spent £1.65m it restricts a players ability to ply his trade at all. Remember the problem here isnt a club not wishing to pay more than this. It is the clubs operating as a cartel to stop anyone paying more than this

Again, nothing stops a club offering what it thinks that players market worth is.

except the Salary Cap. Which it doesnt surprise anyone but you is a cap on salary.

The salary cap gives a club a wage budget to work with, but isn't a clubs wage budget?

no, it is an arbitrary cap.

Any other industry wouldn't need such strict regulations to join it. I couldn't decide to create a team and play professional RL tomorrow. Is that a restriction of trade? It is more a restriction than the cap is.

you can create a pro team and play professional RL tomorrow simply not in Super League. There is nothing to stop you setting up a new league and trading as that. Nothing to stop you inventing an RL team of your mates, paying them what you want and operating as an RL side. You might struggle to find someone to play against but no clubs are under an obligation to play you

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

.. 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

Who is pretending that the clubs aren't in competition with each other?

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:20 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

you can create a pro team and play professional RL tomorrow simply not in Super League. There is nothing to stop you setting up a new league and trading as that. Nothing to stop you inventing an RL team of your mates, paying them what you want and operating as an RL side. You might struggle to find someone to play against but no clubs are under an obligation to play you

simple question then: if the players feel that they could be earning more than they are now in a free market, why dont they all just walk away en masse and set up a new competition where they can be paid whatever they want.

I am guessing that they could find a couple of clubs to go with them, but the majority of clubs wouldnt.

Re: Salary Cap : Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:52 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

simple question then: if the players feel that they could be earning more than they are now in a free market, why dont they all just walk away en masse and set up a new competition where they can be paid whatever they want.

I am guessing that they could find a couple of clubs to go with them, but the majority of clubs wouldnt.

Thats pretty much the reason.

If the clubs stick together then they hold the power (unless of course it is ruled illegal for them to do so)

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:11 am  

So how has the salary cap helped here. http://www.sporthull.co.uk/headlines/Hull-KR-Accounts-debts-163-3m/article-1638846-detail/article.html http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=439393&start=135 The salary cap was brought in to protect clubs from doing this which I agreed with, not equalise the competition.

So how has the salary cap helped here. http://www.sporthull.co.uk/headlines/Hull-KR-Accounts-debts-163-3m/article-1638846-detail/article.html http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=439393&start=135 The salary cap was brought in to protect clubs from doing this which I agreed with, not equalise the competition.

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:14 am  

Rogues, limiting them to £1.6m has helped, can you not see that. if they had been allowed to chase glory like Wigan in their 'glory' era and spent millions more they didn't have, they would now be in a far worse position.

If we scrap the cap like people suggest, how much would Saints, Hull KR, Wigan etc spend on salaries? These are established clubs who simply cant afford to spend more than the cap.

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:54 am  

I'm not suggesting we scrap it, but the initial idea of the cap was to prevent things like this happening.

Clubs have to be made to realise they cannot overspend by such great amounts year on year. Are they really only spending £1.6 million on wages?

Leeds turned over £10.6 million and still made a loss. If they spent £1.6 million on players salaries, where was £9 million spent?
The salary cap in principle is a good idea, and something I have supported, but it's still needs some more thought to stop the HKR type of situation repeating itself.

Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:01 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I'm not suggesting we scrap it, but the initial idea of the cap was to prevent things like this happening.

Clubs have to be made to realise they cannot overspend by such great amounts year on year. Are they really only spending £1.6 million on wages?

Leeds turned over £10.6 million and still made a loss. If they spent £1.6 million on players salaries, where was £9 million spent?
The salary cap in principle is a good idea, and something I have supported, but it's still needs some more thought to stop the HKR type of situation repeating itself.

Leeds probably spent the £9m on such things as non-playing staff salaries, ground maintenance (Built a new stand, is that capitalised as a fixed asset?), match day costs, policing, marketing and promotion, training facility rental/upkeep, medical costs, insurance, youth development, community schemes, transport, bribing match officials and management charges to the parent company.