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?

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.







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'







What? That's bizarre even for you.

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

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



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'



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, [iwell you could ignore the training and qualifications you spend years getting and go start out in a new role or move to another country[/i

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?







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







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.







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, every company has a budget which they set themselves. Not an arbitrary amount set by an outside body





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



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.

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

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.









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







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







Again, that is an point you brought up.







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.







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







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







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.

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



only because of your pedantry



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



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

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



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



no, it is an arbitrary cap.

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

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

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)

So how has the salary cap helped here.



[urlhttp://www.sporthull.co.uk/headlines/Hull-KR-Accounts-debts-163-3m/article-1638846-detail/article.html[/url



[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=59&t=439393&start=135[/url



The salary cap was brought in to protect clubs from doing this which I agreed with, not equalise the competition.

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.

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.

Amongst other things, some of the the costs (not the same as 'spent') according to the accounts were:



Directors emols £290,248

Directors pensions £9,765

Other wages & Salaries (incl players) £4,486,967

Social Security Costs £404,071

Other staff pensions £59,317

Amortisation of transfer fees £33,823

Depreciation £502,667

Amortisation of ground improvement grants (32,561)

Dontation to LR foundation £50,000

P&M rentals £55,461

Paid to Leeds RUFC for unspecified services £200,000

Audit £14,000

auditors - tax services £5,650

auditors - other services £8,565

Legal fees £62,031

Interest paid on bank loans/overdrafts £4,452

Interest paid on loans from group £46,500

CT £458,959

DT £38,814



And, according to what they have said, some £500k on repairs (not capital) to the South Stand plus some refurb work to the Pavilion which also seems to have gone through the P&L.



But more than any other one thing it's wages and salaries - the club employs 100 people besides the players and matchday employees. Just because Wigan are a club without a ground, a soul or much else besides a matchday operation, doesn't mean the rest of the league is.

Now, wouldn't that one right there rankle a tad?

icon_smile.gif It's only money! I'm pleased we are doing all we can to help out our up and coming associate club in their quest to become the dominant rugby force in Yorkshire.

What transfer fees?

Depreciation on what?

What is CT and DT

Why a payment to Leeds RUFC?





100 employees doing what?

At an average of almost £29K per year.



Adding all your figures together including £1.6 million for the players wages then where has the other £4 million gone?

Hmmm your helping them,sure Its not the other way round.

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"What transfer fees?'" Leeds policy when they sign someone on a fee is to write the fee off over the length of that player's first contract. A reasonable policy - God knows who's in that figure in 2008. Last year of Gareth Ellis maybe. It's not a huge figure. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"Depreciation on what?'" Something Wigan wouldn't be familiar with - fixed assets. Don't have the accounts to hand, but the Carnegie Stand will be a good chunk of it. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"What is CT and DT'" Corporation Tax & Deferred Tax. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"Why a payment to Leeds RUFC?'" I'd really love to know. They pay Leeds more in rent etc than Leeds pay them - but then again Leeds own the bloody stadium, pay Hetherington & the rest and they provide no discernable service to Leeds I can find. But they do lose lots of money so perhaps just need the cash. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"100 employees doing what? At an average of almost £29K per year.'" Running a stadium/conference centre/cafe bar/Rugby League club/investing ****loads into the community game. You can email them all and ask what they're up to if you like. www.therhinos.co.uk/club/staff/index.php It seems to be beyond you but turnover of £10m is not coming just from matchday activities. Leeds have corporate facilities for 1,200 people per game - more, they are proud to tell us, than Elland Road and probably more than half the rest of the league put together. So they are ahead to begin with but those facilities then get used midweek for conferences/weddings/special events etc - as the link says, "non-sporting business, including conferences, parties and seminars still account for more business than any other sector". Generating that income costs money and putting on the events which generate that income costs money. One way of running an RL club is having overheads consisting solely of players salaries, a couple of ticket office girls and paying the rent on a stadium you don't own. Great - but you won't get the turnover to levels sufficient to do much else on the expenditure side then.

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"What transfer fees?'" Leeds policy when they sign someone on a fee is to write the fee off over the length of that player's first contract. A reasonable policy - God knows who's in that figure in 2008. Last year of Gareth Ellis maybe. It's not a huge figure. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"Depreciation on what?'" Something Wigan wouldn't be familiar with - fixed assets. Don't have the accounts to hand, but the Carnegie Stand will be a good chunk of it. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"What is CT and DT'" Corporation Tax & Deferred Tax. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"Why a payment to Leeds RUFC?'" I'd really love to know. They pay Leeds more in rent etc than Leeds pay them - but then again Leeds own the bloody stadium, pay Hetherington & the rest and they provide no discernable service to Leeds I can find. But they do lose lots of money so perhaps just need the cash. Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"100 employees doing what? At an average of almost £29K per year.'" Running a stadium/conference centre/cafe bar/Rugby League club/investing ****loads into the community game. You can email them all and ask what they're up to if you like. www.therhinos.co.uk/club/staff/index.php It seems to be beyond you but turnover of £10m is not coming just from matchday activities. Leeds have corporate facilities for 1,200 people per game - more, they are proud to tell us, than Elland Road and probably more than half the rest of the league put together. So they are ahead to begin with but those facilities then get used midweek for conferences/weddings/special events etc - as the link says, "non-sporting business, including conferences, parties and seminars still account for more business than any other sector". Generating that income costs money and putting on the events which generate that income costs money. One way of running an RL club is having overheads consisting solely of players salaries, a couple of ticket office girls and paying the rent on a stadium you don't own. Great - but you won't get the turnover to levels sufficient to do much else on the expenditure side then.

How much worse would the situation have been if they'd have spent another £2 million on player salaries?

Quote MjM="MjM"Leeds policy when they sign someone on a fee is to write the fee off over the length of that player's first contract. A reasonable policy - God knows who's in that figure in 2008. Last year of Gareth Ellis maybe. It's not a huge figure. Something Wigan wouldn't be familiar with - fixed assets. Don't have the accounts to hand, but the Carnegie Stand will be a good chunk of it. Corporation Tax & Deferred Tax. I'd really love to know. They pay Leeds more in rent etc than Leeds pay them - but then again Leeds own the bloody stadium, pay Hetherington & the rest and they provide no discernable service to Leeds I can find. But they do lose lots of money so perhaps just need the cash. Running a stadium/conference centre/cafe bar/Rugby League club/investing ****loads into the community game. You can email them all and ask what they're up to if you like. www.therhinos.co.uk/club/staff/index.php It seems to be beyond you but turnover of £10m is not coming just from matchday activities. Leeds have corporate facilities for 1,200 people per game - more, they are proud to tell us, than Elland Road and probably more than half the rest of the league put together. So they are ahead to begin with but those facilities then get used midweek for conferences/weddings/special events etc - as the link says, "non-sporting business, including conferences, parties and seminars still account for more business than any other sector". Generating that income costs money and putting on the events which generate that income costs money. One way of running an RL club is having overheads consisting solely of players salaries, a couple of ticket office girls and paying the rent on a stadium you don't own. Great - but you won't get the turnover to levels sufficient to do much else on the expenditure side then.'" You seem to be missing the point. We know where the income is from as you have pointed out, but the figures you produced on expenditure appears around £4 million short of the £10.6 million of Leeds turnover. So I'll ask again where do you think it has been spent?

Quote MjM="MjM"Leeds policy when they sign someone on a fee is to write the fee off over the length of that player's first contract. A reasonable policy - God knows who's in that figure in 2008. Last year of Gareth Ellis maybe. It's not a huge figure. Something Wigan wouldn't be familiar with - fixed assets. Don't have the accounts to hand, but the Carnegie Stand will be a good chunk of it. Corporation Tax & Deferred Tax. I'd really love to know. They pay Leeds more in rent etc than Leeds pay them - but then again Leeds own the bloody stadium, pay Hetherington & the rest and they provide no discernable service to Leeds I can find. But they do lose lots of money so perhaps just need the cash. Running a stadium/conference centre/cafe bar/Rugby League club/investing ****loads into the community game. You can email them all and ask what they're up to if you like. www.therhinos.co.uk/club/staff/index.php It seems to be beyond you but turnover of £10m is not coming just from matchday activities. Leeds have corporate facilities for 1,200 people per game - more, they are proud to tell us, than Elland Road and probably more than half the rest of the league put together. So they are ahead to begin with but those facilities then get used midweek for conferences/weddings/special events etc - as the link says, "non-sporting business, including conferences, parties and seminars still account for more business than any other sector". Generating that income costs money and putting on the events which generate that income costs money. One way of running an RL club is having overheads consisting solely of players salaries, a couple of ticket office girls and paying the rent on a stadium you don't own. Great - but you won't get the turnover to levels sufficient to do much else on the expenditure side then.'" You seem to be missing the point. We know where the income is from as you have pointed out, but the figures you produced on expenditure appears around £4 million short of the £10.6 million of Leeds turnover. So I'll ask again where do you think it has been spent?

I'm assuming you don't have much involvement in running a company - high turnover is not just "free cash". You have to PAY money to support and generate that turnover.



Other than the ones I can extract due to various disclosures in the accounts I have no idea what Leeds' or any other club's detailed cost structure is like. But you'll have overheads such as advertising, repairs, rates, heat & light, travel & subsistence, security etc etc God knows how much cash just sticking on the floodlights for three hours or more every other Friday costs. And on the RL side, supporting the junior game, travelling to/from games, stewarding the ground etc. But more than any other figure will be cost of sales. Since a huge proportion of turnover is the corporate side of things you have the cost of putting those events on. Put on a midweek conference and you've got to supply food and drink, limitless prawn sandwiches, those flipcharts, little Headingley Experience pencils & pads, some kid to serve it up, someone to cook. Sell 40,000 shirts, say each one costs £5 to make and you've got a cost of £200k. Plus delivery from China.



The profit from all of which goes towards subsidising the cost of running a series of Rugby League teams at different levels. Because there's no doubt that taken on its own even with a salary cap that is going to be a loss making venture. Bundle the lot together and breaking even is probably the long term aim. Leeds, like most RL clubs, is not particularly run to make a profit although in this case the current owner isn't interested in providing support if they were to make ongoing losses either. So what a "normal" business might take as profit is ploughed back into supporting Rugby League/the club. If crowds or other turnover dipped for a sustained period my guess is Leeds would trim the community programmes as they don't generate any direct income. How much to plough into such, at a budgetary level, unrewarding areas is probably the conundrum most clubs face.

Salary Cap essential for long tem survival of game. Don't want to get back to the bad old days when the whole game was nearly bankrupt trying to keep up with Wigan