Information and Rules for new message board users, plus FAQs for many common topics. Check here to see if your question has already been answered before posting on other forums.
The inflationary increase has been waived in favour of excluding Junior/Academy players from the Cap.
Just to clarify - does this mean "Junior Academy" players i.e. those in the Under 18s, or "Junior/Academy" players, which could be everyone qualifying for U21s? I would suspect that the former would be the case, otherwise the effective increase in the cap would be substantial. If only U18s were excluded, the Ashton case would not happen that often (although undoubtably it would occasionally and he did make his debut aged 18).
PS. Thank to Geoff for pointing out my bad maths - I've been a bit sleepy today, too much running around or something...
The inflationary increase has been waived in favour of excluding Junior/Academy players from the Cap.
Just to clarify - does this mean "Junior Academy" players i.e. those in the Under 18s, or "Junior/Academy" players, which could be everyone qualifying for U21s?
I pasted a direct quote from Steve Williams so I can only assume its the latter and academy players are excepmt from the cap.
I don't know for sure but I am convinced had this rule applied in 2005 we would not have broken the salary cap that year so its all the more galling to me that we get penalised when clubs like Wakey who do nothing for youth development go merrily on their way with all thei cap money invested in senior players.
I would suspect that the former would be the case, otherwise the effective increase in the cap would be substantial. If only U18s were excluded, the Ashton case would not happen that often (although undoubtably it would occasionally and he did make his debut aged 18).
I think the RFL have not realised the potential increase in the cap this really means because it does as I read it include U21 players.
But once they hit 22 surely then they have to be senior players so it just defers the date by which the club must accoiunt for their salaries.
If so its still a good moive overall because it gives the club some more time to see if they are going ot makeit while also paying them a decent wage to keeo then here rather then being forced to feed other clubs who can't be bothered growing tir own much earlier in the players career.
DaveO posted:
I think the RFL have not realised the potential increase in the cap this really means because it does as I read it include U21 players.
But once they hit 22 surely then they have to be senior players so it just defers the date by which the club must accoiunt for their salaries.
Just speculation but ... I would thinkg that the cutoff point would be if you qualified as an U21 at the start of the season (the same criteria for playing for an age restricted side - ignoring the 2 overaged players allowed). This would allow clubs to budget more easily than to have to include fractions of salary (with potential appearance bonuses) based on birthdays.
I do think it is a great idea, especially if it covers U21s. Even better would be to exempt any player that has been under continous contract at a club after having spent over 2 years (say) in the Academy system. That would be a really good incentive to generate local talent.
I wonder if I can be bothered to try and work out what the potential savings on the cap would be for Wigan this seaosn in both cases
...........
No I can't, and a good job too after today's terrible showing in the math's stakes. :conf:
The salary cap is a restriction of trade agreed by the SL clubs to satisfy the samaller clubs .What happens when the franchise comes in 2 yrs time are they still going to implement the salary cap???
The SL will be run more of a business than it is now.
"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.
Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
Fraggle,
Going back a bit to where you explained that we broke rule 14.2, am I correct in thinking the points deduction was purely at the behest of the powers that be and that we could simply have been fined about £78K instead?
I'm sure we would rather have paid the extra £28K and kept the points!!
Surely the loss of 2 points is worth far more than a paltry £28K? IMO the least they could have done after deducting the points was to drastically reduce the amount of the fine. It's almost like being punished twice!!
jinkin jimmy posted:
Fraggle,
Going back a bit to where you explained that we broke rule 14.2, am I correct in thinking the points deduction was purely at the behest of the powers that be and that we could simply have been fined about £78K instead?
I'm sure we would rather have paid the extra £28K and kept the points!!
Surely the loss of 2 points is worth far more than a paltry £28K? IMO the least they could have done after deducting the points was to drastically reduce the amount of the fine. It's almost like being punished twice!!
Two questions to answer, there, jj.
Firstly, I suspect that the choice of fine or points rests with the RFL, not the club, and they'd pick whichever would have the most effect. For example, should Bradford be found guilty, they may impose the fine instead of a points deduction, as their league position means that points are not really an issue, but their oft-quoted financial problems might be.
Secondly, our £50k fine was in addition to the points deducted for a separate offence: "conduct prejudicial to the game" - which seems to mean the deliberate flouting of the rules (rather than an accidental overspend).
The inflationary increase has been waived in favour of excluding Junior/Academy players from the Cap.
Just to clarify - does this mean "Junior Academy" players i.e. those in the Under 18s, or "Junior/Academy" players, which could be everyone qualifying for U21s?
I pasted a direct quote from Steve Williams so I can only assume its the latter and academy players are excepmt from the cap.
I don't know for sure but I am convinced had this rule applied in 2005 we would not have broken the salary cap that year so its all the more galling to me that we get penalised when clubs like Wakey who do nothing for youth development go merrily on their way with all thei cap money invested in senior players.
I would suspect that the former would be the case, otherwise the effective increase in the cap would be substantial. If only U18s were excluded, the Ashton case would not happen that often (although undoubtably it would occasionally and he did make his debut aged 18).
I think the RFL have not realised the potential increase in the cap this really means because it does as I read it include U21 players.
But once they hit 22 surely then they have to be senior players so it just defers the date by which the club must accoiunt for their salaries.
If so its still a good moive overall because it gives the club some more time to see if they are going ot makeit while also paying them a decent wage to keeo then here rather then being forced to feed other clubs who can't be bothered growing tir own much earlier in the players career.
Dave
didnt wakefield cancell a accadamy match against us because they couldnt get a team ,did the rfl punish them ,i agree they do jack for youth development and spend all there money on the first team players surely this isnt right dock them pts
dock them pts 