Salary Cap FAQ

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.
pedro
Posts: 5293
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:37 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by pedro »

I read a quote form their chairman once saying they dont spend money on an academy as they dont have to. He said they just buy everyone elses when they leave.

This is a flaw of the cap as we spend a lot of money developing them for other clubs!
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by DaveO »

pedro posted:
I read a quote form their chairman once saying they dont spend money on an academy as they dont have to. He said they just buy everyone elses when they leave.
I had a chat with a Wakey fan on rlfans about youth development and he told me one of their senior officials said they would not persue youth development as it was too risky. They would not pay out salary cap money to players who would not be of the required standard to help them stay in SL or may not make the grade.

It wasn't that they sought to pinch other clubs young players as such but that they were not going to risk developing theie own and would go for established players instead.
This is a flaw of the cap as we spend a lot of money developing them for other clubs!
The flaw is the 20/25 and the fact that up until next season the wages of young players count on the cap.

However even with junior players off the cap there is no guarantee clubs like Wakefield will suddenly start trying to develop younger players. This is because just because they could still spend all their cap money on established playes it does not mean they will have any left over to spend on junior development. They may not be well off enough to afford to run a proper youth set up.

So what is needed is some compulsion on SL sides to run proper youth teams. Changee to the salary cap can't force them to do this and IMO if you can't afford to run youth teams as well as the senior squad then you have no business being in SL.

Dave
pedro
Posts: 5293
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:37 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by pedro »

DaveO posted:
pedro posted:
I read a quote form their chairman once saying they dont spend money on an academy as they dont have to. He said they just buy everyone elses when they leave.
I had a chat with a Wakey fan on rlfans about youth development and he told me one of their senior officials said they would not persue youth development as it was too risky. They would not pay out salary cap money to players who would not be of the required standard to help them stay in SL or may not make the grade.

It wasn't that they sought to pinch other clubs young players as such but that they were not going to risk developing theie own and would go for established players instead.
This is a flaw of the cap as we spend a lot of money developing them for other clubs!
The flaw is the 20/25 and the fact that up until next season the wages of young players count on the cap.

However even with junior players off the cap there is no guarantee clubs like Wakefield will suddenly start trying to develop younger players. This is because just because they could still spend all their cap money on established playes it does not mean they will have any left over to spend on junior development. They may not be well off enough to afford to run a proper youth set up.

So what is needed is some compulsion on SL sides to run proper youth teams. Changee to the salary cap can't force them to do this and IMO if you can't afford to run youth teams as well as the senior squad then you have no business being in SL.

Dave
Just saying what their chairman said. I agree they should run youth teams some NL1 teams have good youth setup's and they manage ok.
I dont think anyone under 21 should be involved in the cap. It restricts development.
dainty
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by dainty »

hows it going mr fraggle hope you are o.k just a quick one i saw it on text this morning about bradford they also have had 2 points deducted, 25,000 fine some of that suspended for them being honest, couldnt the rfl suspend some of wigans fine because they were honest and pleaded guilty or do you think that the rfl want wigan to go down. Oh and by the way who's the ref for friday night.
Fraggle
Posts: 6020
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by Fraggle »

dainty posted:
hows it going mr fraggle hope you are o.k just a quick one i saw it on text this morning about bradford they also have had 2 points deducted, 25,000 fine some of that suspended for them being honest, couldnt the rfl suspend some of wigans fine because they were honest and pleaded guilty or do you think that the rfl want wigan to go down.
I don't think the RFL want Wigan to go down, but I don't think they'll reduce our fine either. The organisation seems to make a point of being inconsistent with every major decision it makes (eg. disciplinary decisions), and this is just another one. I don't suppose Mr Whelan will miss £50k too much, and it might even prove to be the extra bit of motivation the lads need to play even better and keep us up.
Oh and by the way who's the ref for friday night.
No idea, I'm afraid, although I'm sure GeoffN will post a message about this in the next day or two, and Turf will post the same message a few hours later...
http://fraggle.fotopic.net

"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]
GeoffN
Posts: 12559
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:40 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by GeoffN »

Fraggle posted:
Oh and by the way who's the ref for friday night.
No idea, I'm afraid, although I'm sure GeoffN will post a message about this in the next day or two, and Turf will post the same message a few hours later...
Not been announced yet! You can always check yourself, though, on the RFL site.
http://www.therfl.co.uk/ABOUT/appointments.php
Should be up sometime today.
kevsev
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by kevsev »

I have just read the article re Kevin Brown going to Hudds,on wiganrl.com, and in it ML says

"We signed Kevin as a youngster and it is always disappointing when you have to let a player move on. The salary cap restrictions of £1.6 million next year mean that we need to be even tighter in 2007 with the number of players we have. I would like to wish him every success in his future career."

In fraggles post it states that the salary cap will rise from the £1.7m in 2005 to £1.75m in 2006

Is ML now saying it will decrease in 2007 ?????

Is this yet another ML got it wrong again ??????
Fraggle
Posts: 6020
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by Fraggle »

kevsev posted:
I have just read the article re Kevin Brown going to Hudds,on wiganrl.com, and in it ML says

"We signed Kevin as a youngster and it is always disappointing when you have to let a player move on. The salary cap restrictions of £1.6 million next year mean that we need to be even tighter in 2007 with the number of players we have. I would like to wish him every success in his future career."

In fraggles post it states that the salary cap will rise from the £1.7m in 2005 to £1.75m in 2006

Is ML now saying it will decrease in 2007 ?????

Is this yet another ML got it wrong again ??????
It's related to a change the way the cap is calculated. I've copied this from an earlier post by DaveO, it's a reply from one of the RFL's accountants that explains the discrepancy:-
Dave O quoted Steve Williams:
In the Cap for 2007 there have been changes in its composition and consequently the level will be £1600k. This is not the reduction it might seem and is purely created by the exclusion of the Employers NI cost from the calculation, which for clubs operating at the finite cap of £1750k is approximately £150k.
So the limit is actually £1.6m, but when the NI costs are added back in it will be something like the £1.75m that would have been the limit without this change (again, I got the £1.75m limit from an email I got from Steve Williams about a year ago). A bit confusing, but that's why we thought we needed an FAQ, to try and make sense of the whole thing!
http://fraggle.fotopic.net

"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]
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by DaveO »

kevsev posted:
In fraggles post it states that the salary cap will rise from the £1.7m in 2005 to £1.75m in 2006

Is ML now saying it will decrease in 2007 ?????

Is this yet another ML got it wrong again ??????
This has been discussed elsewhere but since this is the salary cap FAQ thread I will try and explain it again here.

In 2007 some changes have been made to the salary cap. It will go down to £1.6m but according to the RFL this will make no practical difference to what clubs can pay players as National Insurance contributions won't count on the salary cap.

The implication of this is that currently national insurance contributions do count on the cap.

I am not sure which ones count i.e. employee contributions (11% of wages) or employer contributions (12.8% wages) but lets say its employee contributions.

That means currently if you pay a player £100K a year you take a hit against your salary cap allowance of £111,000. (its actually a bit less than that due to the way NI is calculated but its not far out).

In 2007 as NI contributions won't count against the cap the hit you take for paying a player £100K is simply £100K. So you take a smaller hit against the salary cap in 2007 for paying the player the same wage.

This means the salary cap can be set to a lower figure without forcing clubs to trim their wage bill.

That is if you work out how much NI is payable on £1.6 million, you get 176,000 (11% of 1.6 million) and if you add that to 1.6 million you end up with £1,776,000 which compares to the £1.75m salary cap of 2006.

There are also other changes in 2007 in that the wages of junior (i.e. U21 and U18 ) players do not on the salary cap as they do now.

So to answer your question about ML he has got it wrong because the salary cap remains effectively the same in 2007 due to this fiddling about with NI contributions but also because with the wages of U21/U18 no longer counted in the cap he actually has a little more money to throw at other players.

Conclusion: he either does not know how the cap works or is telling porkies or the RFL are not being strictly accurate saying £1.6m minus NI contributions is equivalent to £1.75 million with them included.

For completeness sake the inflation increase to the cap that was applied in 2006 to take the cap from the 2005 level of 1.7 million to 1.75 million is not being applied to the figures for 2007. The reason for this is the change mentioned above of removing U21.U18 from the cap as that is an effective increase in the cap.

Dave
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap FAQ

Post by DaveO »

I have had a reply from Steve Williams regarding how the wages of junior players affect the salary cap.

A direct quote from Steve's email:
My previous email was in fact misleading quoting an intention rather than what was actually agreed.

Maurice is correct in that an allowance of £3k is being given against junior players. Anything paid above £3k counts.
We have 30 senior and junior academy players to that saves us £90K on the cap assuming we pay all of 'em at least £3000.

But that is all it does really as it is just a net figure and does not strike me as encouraging junior player development anything like a complete exemption.

For comparison purposes if a 2.5% inflation increase on this years cap of £1.75m was applied that would increase the available spend by £43,750.

So while removing junior players entirely has not happened the net effect is an increase of up to £90K on the cap which is more than the inflation increase that has been given up for this.

Dave
Post Reply