WiganWarriorsFans.com

Just a quick question on something i picked up on in a Hastings interview;

I believe that under salary cap law that a player cannot earn money through advertising without it counting towards the cap. I know that several of the players had ventures outside of rugby such as clothing lines etc most of them are done under other parties i.e they are an investor in a company with no direct affiliation to themselves

Hastings mentioned in an interview he was keeping the number 31 so that he could effectively brand the number and name (similar to Ronaldo CR7) If he brings out a clothing line or merch thats branded to him does that count as advertising? and would that therefore form part of the cap? or does it only could when a player is used to promote a 3rd party?

I think with the likes of Oddballs xblades and Piranha Guard the players got freebies and splosh it on social media saying nothing is better (the way it works isn’t it)

This is a Q for DaveO

That rule needs to go anyway.

It stops players becoming household names and is another example of the RFL on purpose trying to hamper the game.

Didn't Beckham make more money off advertising than football?

Players like gildart might be persuaded to stay in SL if they can make extra money through different streams, he almost made to be a Gillett advertiser.

Caboosegg wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:05 am That rule needs to go anyway.

It stops players becoming household names and is another example of the RFL on purpose trying to hamper the game.

Didn't Beckham make more money off advertising than football?

Players like gildart might be persuaded to stay in SL if they can make extra money through different streams, he almost made to be a Gillett advertiser.

Yes it does all those things. The thing is that if it were not applied then clubs could effectively bypass the Salary Cap.

Don't get me wrong, the Salary Cap means that RL will eventually become a 3rd rate semi pro sport and for that reason I despise it, but if you are to have one, then advertising income must be counted.

Not sure that the salary cap is the cause of the sport losing some of its apyeal? Many other sports have salary caps and are thriving. The NRL has a cap for example. Perhaps it's the level of the cap that you think is the problem?

For advertising income, if you're a Marquee player it won't affect you because your cap cost is essentially fixed. So if Hastings wants to make money from becoming a household name it wouldn't stop him personally. Although it potentially affects other non Marquee players. Sam Tomkins didn't seem to be affected during his period in the limelight, so maybe there are ways around it. I doubt income from media appearances is restricted.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Wintergreen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:34 pm

Caboosegg wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:05 am That rule needs to go anyway.

It stops players becoming household names and is another example of the RFL on purpose trying to hamper the game.

Didn't Beckham make more money off advertising than football?

Players like gildart might be persuaded to stay in SL if they can make extra money through different streams, he almost made to be a Gillett advertiser.

Yes it does all those things. The thing is that if it were not applied then clubs could effectively bypass the Salary Cap.

Don't get me wrong, the Salary Cap means that RL will eventually become a 3rd rate semi pro sport and for that reason I despise it, but if you are to have one, then advertising income must be counted.

In Aus they can though

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:Just a quick question on something i picked up on in a Hastings interview;

I believe that under salary cap law that a player cannot earn money through advertising without it counting towards the cap. I know that several of the players had ventures outside of rugby such as clothing lines etc most of them are done under other parties i.e they are an investor in a company with no direct affiliation to themselves

Hastings mentioned in an interview he was keeping the number 31 so that he could effectively brand the number and name (similar to Ronaldo CR7) If he brings out a clothing line or merch thats branded to him does that count as advertising? and would that therefore form part of the cap? or does it only could when a player is used to promote a 3rd party?

If it can be linked back to RL then probably counts on the cap. I am sure we’d have seen more than him doing the same if it were that easy to get around the salary cap in this way. Image rights rules would probably catch it as him wearing 31 as a fashion model for a t shirt or whatever would be linked back to him as playing 31 for Wigan.

If he’s found a loophole (and I don’t think he has) it would be shut as soon as Castleford complained it wasn’t in the spirit of the cap anyway! Such is the backward nature of how RL is run.

Perhaps he wants to have 31 as a number so if he goes to the NRL and gets the same number where exploiting this would not be an issue means he can execute his master plan then?

Mike wrote:Not sure that the salary cap is the cause of the sport losing some of its apyeal? Many other sports have salary caps and are thriving. The NRL has a cap for example. Perhaps it's the level of the cap that you think is the problem?

For advertising income, if you're a Marquee player it won't affect you because your cap cost is essentially fixed. So if Hastings wants to make money from becoming a household name it wouldn't stop him personally. Although it potentially affects other non Marquee players. Sam Tomkins didn't seem to be affected during his period in the limelight, so maybe there are ways around it. I doubt income from media appearances is restricted.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Interesting point about the marquee player rule and if income form that via advertising or image rights is included.

The rules are specific image rights in general count on the cap so if Hastings could make money by modelling and running a No 31 clothing line, which I am pretty sure if he was non marquee would get caught that way on the cap, just because he was marquee and other players could not, well recipe for discontent or what.

DaveO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:44 am

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:Just a quick question on something i picked up on in a Hastings interview;

I believe that under salary cap law that a player cannot earn money through advertising without it counting towards the cap. I know that several of the players had ventures outside of rugby such as clothing lines etc most of them are done under other parties i.e they are an investor in a company with no direct affiliation to themselves

Hastings mentioned in an interview he was keeping the number 31 so that he could effectively brand the number and name (similar to Ronaldo CR7) If he brings out a clothing line or merch thats branded to him does that count as advertising? and would that therefore form part of the cap? or does it only could when a player is used to promote a 3rd party?

If it can be linked back to RL then probably counts on the cap. I am sure we’d have seen more than him doing the same if it were that easy to get around the salary cap in this way. Image rights rules would probably catch it as him wearing 31 as a fashion model for a t shirt or whatever would be linked back to him as playing 31 for Wigan.

If he’s found a loophole (and I don’t think he has) it would be shut as soon as Castleford complained it wasn’t in the spirit of the cap anyway! Such is the backward nature of how RL is run.

Perhaps he wants to have 31 as a number so if he goes to the NRL and gets the same number where exploiting this would not be an issue means he can execute his master plan then?

I thought the NRL had shirt numbers 1 - 17, not having a specific squad number allocated to each squad member.

michael inch stoke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:54 pm

DaveO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:44 am

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:Just a quick question on something i picked up on in a Hastings interview;

I believe that under salary cap law that a player cannot earn money through advertising without it counting towards the cap. I know that several of the players had ventures outside of rugby such as clothing lines etc most of them are done under other parties i.e they are an investor in a company with no direct affiliation to themselves

Hastings mentioned in an interview he was keeping the number 31 so that he could effectively brand the number and name (similar to Ronaldo CR7) If he brings out a clothing line or merch thats branded to him does that count as advertising? and would that therefore form part of the cap? or does it only could when a player is used to promote a 3rd party?

If it can be linked back to RL then probably counts on the cap. I am sure we’d have seen more than him doing the same if it were that easy to get around the salary cap in this way. Image rights rules would probably catch it as him wearing 31 as a fashion model for a t shirt or whatever would be linked back to him as playing 31 for Wigan.

If he’s found a loophole (and I don’t think he has) it would be shut as soon as Castleford complained it wasn’t in the spirit of the cap anyway! Such is the backward nature of how RL is run.

Perhaps he wants to have 31 as a number so if he goes to the NRL and gets the same number where exploiting this would not be an issue means he can execute his master plan then?

I thought the NRL had shirt numbers 1 - 17, not having a specific squad number allocated to each squad member.

yes i think youre correct NRL have game day shirts and you get given the number of the position you play in.

Its really interesting the point of a marquee player not limited by cap because effectively those players (no matter the disharmony it may cause) could potentially exploit advertising? because even if they brought home £8 million it wouldn't matter? or would it? im very confused.

I assume hastings will know this before he embarks on any venture into branding.