: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:48 am  

bloomers wrote: How is that rule policed? I've heard that rule being talked about, but I don't know the exact details of it. I assume they cannot ban a club from employing any relatives of players, so do they just make a judgement on the basis of what a fair wage would be in that scenario? For example, Bibey's wife worked at Wakey until recently. Now quite clearly, he's not the type of player who you'd consider shennanigans to sneak under the salary cap, but how do the RFL work out it is all above board? I'd also guess there are still possibilities of this being circumvented by third parties such as sponsors, as much as the RFL can explicitly rule against it. If any relative of a player subject to the cap is employed by the club (or any other company directly linked to the club, e.g. a sponsor) then their salary counts as part of the cap as well. It's all in section 5 in this document http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Oper ... rt%205.pdf

bloomers wrote: How is that rule policed? I've heard that rule being talked about, but I don't know the exact details of it. I assume they cannot ban a club from employing any relatives of players, so do they just make a judgement on the basis of what a fair wage would be in that scenario? For example, Bibey's wife worked at Wakey until recently. Now quite clearly, he's not the type of player who you'd consider shennanigans to sneak under the salary cap, but how do the RFL work out it is all above board? I'd also guess there are still possibilities of this being circumvented by third parties such as sponsors, as much as the RFL can explicitly rule against it. If any relative of a player subject to the cap is employed by the club (or any other company directly linked to the club, e.g. a sponsor) then their salary counts as part of the cap as well. It's all in section 5 in this document http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Oper ... rt%205.pdf

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:49 am  

Scenario:

Player receives money directly from xyz company for publicity and promotion activities regarding said company's services or products. That company is not a club sponsor and is not in any other way connected with the club. Company can nevertheless benefit significantly by association of its services or products with the club and the player, so get most of the benefits of sponsorship anyway.

Obviously, you would expect it to be much easier for a quality player with a perceived glamour/successful club to secure such an arrangment than an ordinary player from a non-glamour club?

From my reading of the Operational Rules, such payments are fine and fall outside the salary cap. Anyone able to add anything to that to confirm or deny?

Presumably that's the case if the player's agent identifies and negotiates it? Is it still OK if the club provides the introduction, especially if the club has a well-resourced marketing and sponsorship operation so will already have potential opportunities in mind? Is it still OK if the club in practice negotiates it on the player's (agent's) behalf?

Is it still OK if (for some strange reason) the club and the player then agree the player does not need a market-rate salary from the club because of what he is now receiving externally? No connection, obviously...

And, taking this scenario to its logical conclusion, does this explain why some clubs are believed by fans to be able to support a much higher quality (and therefore it is presumed cost) team than others for supposedly the same salary cap?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:07 am  

Regarding your last point I think it's easier for some of the bigger clubs who have been up there longer to attract those players for a lower wage than say Hull Kr would. The other thing with bringing through youngsters like Leeds for example, i'd imagine they pay those players significantly less than say if Castleford went and signed Luke Burgess tomorrow.

I'm not sure how the sponsorship thing works but if a corporation wants to sponsor a player individually I don't think that should be on the cap, even if the club makes the introduction. If the corp is a club sponsor however that's different. I've always believed a player should be allowed to make money from their name.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:10 pm  

Had to laugh when in Perps a couple of years ago and the club shop was staffed by 4 Aussie ladies. I wonder if they were being counted on Les Cats salary cap?

Re: The top earner? : Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:42 pm  

SCF wrote:

Seem to remember rumours of her having a high salary working behind the bar or something...

I thought that was Steve Renoufs wife working in the kitchen for like £300,000 a year.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:46 pm  

I reckon Matt King is the highest paid and most overpaid player in SL. I bet some of Warrington's players eg. Monaghan, Morley, Gleeson etc. are up there.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:01 pm  

~ No1 Saints Fan ~ wrote:

I reckon Matt King is the highest paid and most overpaid player in SL. I bet some of Warrington's players eg. Monaghan, Morley, Gleeson etc. are up there.

How much do you reckon Scully grossed in total, including his Gillette sponsorship?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:02 pm  

Isn't Berrigan meant to be earning something like £200,000 a year?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:06 pm  

~ No1 Saints Fan ~ wrote:

I reckon Matt King is the highest paid and most overpaid player in SL. I bet some of Warrington's players eg. Monaghan, Morley, Gleeson etc. are up there.

I'd have thought so but then again we only spend the same cap as everyone else so we cant be paying them as much as some would believe

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:12 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

How much do you reckon Scully grossed in total, including his Gillette sponsorship?

I'm sure someone (without any evidence, obviously) said £700K to me once.