Re: RUMOURS : Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:32 pm  

If nothing else it's going to make the Huddersfield - Leeds game pretty interesting.

Re: RUMOURS : Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:27 pm  

FWIW Hetherington reckons no players outgoing to accommodate Ferres. Perhaps he's another one happy to forego some salary for the high probability of silverware. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7655956

FWIW Hetherington reckons no players outgoing to accommodate Ferres. Perhaps he's another one happy to forego some salary for the high probability of silverware. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7655956

Re: RUMOURS : Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:13 pm  

Or perhaps he's getting paid peanuts and his wife is getting a six figure salary to work in the club shop......oh wait......

[Karen]

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:02 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote: FWIW Hetherington reckons no players outgoing to accommodate Ferres. Perhaps he's another one happy to forego some salary for the high probability of silverware. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7655956 Leeds have a very structured salary policy. No one is on mahoosive amounts and pay increases are only agreed when players prove themselves and Hetherington says so, not when players/managers demand. The huge difference is that players actually want to play for Leeds therefore huge salaries to lure players there aren't necessary unlike in the 90s. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ferres is actually on less at Leeds. Leeds are one of the only clubs to have never broken the salary cap and Pearson has many a time admitted that he admires the way Leeds is run financially.

Mrs Barista wrote: FWIW Hetherington reckons no players outgoing to accommodate Ferres. Perhaps he's another one happy to forego some salary for the high probability of silverware. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7655956 Leeds have a very structured salary policy. No one is on mahoosive amounts and pay increases are only agreed when players prove themselves and Hetherington says so, not when players/managers demand. The huge difference is that players actually want to play for Leeds therefore huge salaries to lure players there aren't necessary unlike in the 90s. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ferres is actually on less at Leeds. Leeds are one of the only clubs to have never broken the salary cap and Pearson has many a time admitted that he admires the way Leeds is run financially.

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:37 pm  

Karen wrote:

Leeds have a very structured salary policy. No one is on mahoosive amounts and pay increases are only agreed when players prove themselves and Hetherington says so, not when players/managers demand. The huge difference is that players actually want to play for Leeds therefore huge salaries to lure players there aren't necessary unlike in the 90s. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ferres is actually on less at Leeds. Leeds are one of the only clubs to have never broken the salary cap and Pearson has many a time admitted that he admires the way Leeds is run financially.

they aren't that squeaky clean irrc, didnt leeds get a fine and a wrap on the knuckles for sending young players to hunslet on certain contracts that took them off their own salary cap?

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:58 pm  

Prize money doesn't count on the cap, so that will help (some) clubs a bit. New 2016 Superleague Cap rules published...... http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... %20PDF.pdf

Prize money doesn't count on the cap, so that will help (some) clubs a bit. New 2016 Superleague Cap rules published...... http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... %20PDF.pdf

[Karen]

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:45 pm  

number 6 wrote:

they aren't that squeaky clean irrc, didnt leeds get a fine and a wrap on the knuckles for sending young players to hunslet on certain contracts that took them off their own salary cap?

I hadn't heard that but then again, I think that's one of the dodgy sides to the whole duel reg thing which I don't like anyway.

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:55 pm  

number 6 wrote:

they aren't that squeaky clean irrc, didnt leeds get a fine and a wrap on the knuckles for sending young players to hunslet on certain contracts that took them off their own salary cap?

You couldn't make it up!
Had a quick look and in Section 3 Salary Cap Offences 3.1.1a, it says you can't exceed £1.825m then backs it up in brackets with (One Million Nine Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Pounds).

Now I'm not an Accountant, but I can imagine some Clubs will already have booked a Double Decker Bus and a Lawyer to drive through that accidental £100k typo error.

You'd have thought they'd have proof read it before sending it out.

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm  

Karen wrote: I hadn't heard that but then again, I think that's one of the dodgy sides to the whole duel reg thing which I don't like anyway. http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... ned-by-rfl i think they knew what they were doing, not dual reg, just getting around the cap

Karen wrote: I hadn't heard that but then again, I think that's one of the dodgy sides to the whole duel reg thing which I don't like anyway. http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/n ... ned-by-rfl i think they knew what they were doing, not dual reg, just getting around the cap

Re: RUMOURS : Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:14 pm  

Rugby Raider wrote:

You'd have thought they'd have proof read it before sending it out.

Hmm. The evidence of robust RFL regulation definition and consistent application thereof is not that compelling tbh.