Salary Cap Question

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
Wintergreen
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Wintergreen » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:25 pm

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:03 pm
michael inch stoke wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:54 pm
DaveO wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:44 am


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.
No it wouldn't matter how much a marquee player gets paid either directly or indirectly. It would matter in the case of any other player.

Caboosegg
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Caboosegg » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:30 pm

Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:25 pm
Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:03 pm
michael inch stoke wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:54 pm


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.
No it wouldn't matter how much a marquee player gets paid either directly or indirectly. It would matter in the case of any other player.
Don't most players have alternative jobs?

I know Charnley started a clothing range as did Teirney?

It just doesn't make sense that it goes on the cap, anything that increases the RL profile should not count.

I get the idea is to stop clubs abusing it to pay their own players to break the cap, but surely theres a better way to prevent it than ban it.
The Turkeys voted for Christmas.

A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices

George Orwell

Wintergreen
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Wintergreen » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:50 pm

Caboosegg wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:30 pm
Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:25 pm
Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:03 pm


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.
No it wouldn't matter how much a marquee player gets paid either directly or indirectly. It would matter in the case of any other player.
Don't most players have alternative jobs?

I know Charnley started a clothing range as did Teirney?

It just doesn't make sense that it goes on the cap, anything that increases the RL profile should not count.

I get the idea is to stop clubs abusing it to pay their own players to break the cap, but surely theres a better way to prevent it than ban it.
Maybe I'm wrong then. I just cannot see how it would be policed if that were the case.

User avatar
Mike
Site Admin
Posts: 5551
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Mike » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:09 pm

I wonder how semi pro players are counted on the championship cap? Do their day jobs count?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


User avatar
Wigan_forever1985
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:50 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Wigan_forever1985 » Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:23 am

Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:50 pm
Caboosegg wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:30 pm
Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:25 pm


No it wouldn't matter how much a marquee player gets paid either directly or indirectly. It would matter in the case of any other player.
Don't most players have alternative jobs?

I know Charnley started a clothing range as did Teirney?

It just doesn't make sense that it goes on the cap, anything that increases the RL profile should not count.

I get the idea is to stop clubs abusing it to pay their own players to break the cap, but surely theres a better way to prevent it than ban it.
Maybe I'm wrong then. I just cannot see how it would be policed if that were the case.
I thought the issue was around image rights and rugby activity (but again i am not an expert at all)

My understanding is though that as long as its not rugby related or selling the image of them playing rugby they are free to earn outside of cap

Charnley's clothing range isnt advertised through Josh so i think he will get away with it he isnt directly sponsored by the company he owns a stake in it.

The problem areas would be if Wire hired Josh as a Janitor or one of the other businesses directly related to the club or owner, or if the clothing range was directly related to him playing rugby like a boot range that had his wire number on and colours.

Imagine you have a super rich carefree owner - what is to stop them paying the marquee player £3mil a year and then that marquee player gifting £75k to the rest of the senior players?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure

Caboosegg
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Caboosegg » Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:06 pm

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:23 am
Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:50 pm
Caboosegg wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:30 pm


Don't most players have alternative jobs?

I know Charnley started a clothing range as did Teirney?

It just doesn't make sense that it goes on the cap, anything that increases the RL profile should not count.

I get the idea is to stop clubs abusing it to pay their own players to break the cap, but surely theres a better way to prevent it than ban it.
Maybe I'm wrong then. I just cannot see how it would be policed if that were the case.


Imagine you have a super rich carefree owner - what is to stop them paying the marquee player £3mil a year and then that marquee player gifting £75k to the rest of the senior players?
Whats to stop that now? I know owner gifting players is against the cap but is player to player.

And if a player does want to use there image to sell or advertise i again don't see the issue, we should be promoting RL not trying to hide it.

The original intent may have been in good faith but in the age of mass media prevent players growing their profile and as a by product knowledge of the sports existence is Moronic (in my opinion).

I find boxing boring for example but i can name a few boxers because they build a profile.

Sure the RFL may not directly benefit straight away but for example (made up)

SBW advertises a set of rugby boots, the company sees sales go up because of his profile, this is very likely to create a sponser, other companies see the effect and then you have competition for sponsorship rights bring money into RL.
The Turkeys voted for Christmas.

A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices

George Orwell

morley pie eater
Posts: 1634
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by morley pie eater » Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:56 pm

Many years ago, I read Fred Trueman's autobiography. If I remember it right, one story went like this:

On a tour of Aus, Trueman was "popular" with the Aussie fans (ie they liked to hate him). He was offered an advertising deal, but had to ask your management for permission. This consisted of captain, Rev David Sheppard, and tour manager the Earl of Derby.

They said that any player earning money from advertising had to put it in a kitty to be shared by all. Trueman replied "And what are the rest of you going to advertise? Horse linament and dog collars?"

DaveO
Posts: 14426
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by DaveO » Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:23 pm

Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:50 pm
Caboosegg wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:30 pm
Don't most players have alternative jobs?

I know Charnley started a clothing range as did Teirney?

It just doesn't make sense that it goes on the cap, anything that increases the RL profile should not count.

I get the idea is to stop clubs abusing it to pay their own players to break the cap, but surely theres a better way to prevent it than ban it.
Maybe I'm wrong then. I just cannot see how it would be policed if that were the case.
I thought the issue was around image rights and rugby activity (but again i am not an expert at all)

My understanding is though that as long as its not rugby related or selling the image of them playing rugby they are free to earn outside of cap

Charnley's clothing range isnt advertised through Josh so i think he will get away with it he isnt directly sponsored by the company he owns a stake in it.

The problem areas would be if Wire hired Josh as a Janitor or one of the other businesses directly related to the club or owner, or if the clothing range was directly related to him playing rugby like a boot range that had his wire number on and colours.

Imagine you have a super rich carefree owner - what is to stop them paying the marquee player £3mil a year and then that marquee player gifting £75k to the rest of the senior players?
Yes it is centred around rugby for the image rights. If the RFL saw Hastings doing something that they considered was him selling his image I think the fact he’s a marquee player is irrelevant.

They would simply demand to know how much he earned from them and slap that liability onto our cap and I don’t think the club could argue his earnings from his image rights were part of his marquee wages.

As to paying a marquee £3m and the marquee player dolling out lots of £75k payments to various players that this was going on would come out eventually (as did the arrangements at Sarries in RU) and the club would get done for breaking the spirit of the cap and deliberately doing so. Mega penalties would follow.


Wintergreen
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by Wintergreen » Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:34 pm

DaveO wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:23 pm
Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
Wintergreen wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:50 pm


Maybe I'm wrong then. I just cannot see how it would be policed if that were the case.
I thought the issue was around image rights and rugby activity (but again i am not an expert at all)

My understanding is though that as long as its not rugby related or selling the image of them playing rugby they are free to earn outside of cap

Charnley's clothing range isnt advertised through Josh so i think he will get away with it he isnt directly sponsored by the company he owns a stake in it.

The problem areas would be if Wire hired Josh as a Janitor or one of the other businesses directly related to the club or owner, or if the clothing range was directly related to him playing rugby like a boot range that had his wire number on and colours.

Imagine you have a super rich carefree owner - what is to stop them paying the marquee player £3mil a year and then that marquee player gifting £75k to the rest of the senior players?
Yes it is centred around rugby for the image rights. If the RFL saw Hastings doing something that they considered was him selling his image I think the fact he’s a marquee player is irrelevant.

They would simply demand to know how much he earned from them and slap that liability onto our cap and I don’t think the club could argue his earnings from his image rights were part of his marquee wages.

As to paying a marquee £3m and the marquee player dolling out lots of £75k payments to various players that this was going on would come out eventually (as did the arrangements at Sarries in RU) and the club would get done for breaking the spirit of the cap and deliberately doing so. Mega penalties would follow.
The issue that they have is that the "Spirit of the cap" is utter twaddle.

Impossible to quantify, legally unenforceable and essentially the RFL's attempt to cover up the deficiencies in their approach.

DaveO
Posts: 14426
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap Question

Post by DaveO » Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:25 am

Wintergreen wrote:
DaveO wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:23 pm
Wigan_forever1985 wrote: I thought the issue was around image rights and rugby activity (but again i am not an expert at all)

My understanding is though that as long as its not rugby related or selling the image of them playing rugby they are free to earn outside of cap

Charnley's clothing range isnt advertised through Josh so i think he will get away with it he isnt directly sponsored by the company he owns a stake in it.

The problem areas would be if Wire hired Josh as a Janitor or one of the other businesses directly related to the club or owner, or if the clothing range was directly related to him playing rugby like a boot range that had his wire number on and colours.

Imagine you have a super rich carefree owner - what is to stop them paying the marquee player £3mil a year and then that marquee player gifting £75k to the rest of the senior players?
Yes it is centred around rugby for the image rights. If the RFL saw Hastings doing something that they considered was him selling his image I think the fact he’s a marquee player is irrelevant.

They would simply demand to know how much he earned from them and slap that liability onto our cap and I don’t think the club could argue his earnings from his image rights were part of his marquee wages.

As to paying a marquee £3m and the marquee player dolling out lots of £75k payments to various players that this was going on would come out eventually (as did the arrangements at Sarries in RU) and the club would get done for breaking the spirit of the cap and deliberately doing so. Mega penalties would follow.
The issue that they have is that the "Spirit of the cap" is utter twaddle.

Impossible to quantify, legally unenforceable and essentially the RFL's attempt to cover up the deficiencies in their approach.
It was the spirit of the cap nonsense that did for us when we deferred wages of the likes of Hansen to sign Fielden.

Deferring wages was not uncommon in the NRL at the time to do the same and that was Wigan’s defence against the charge of breaking the cap. When they could not get us technically for doing so as a result, they went for the spirit of the cap.

ML was up for challenging it but the season was over and he decided not to bother as events had overtaken everything.

I was disappointed he didn’t pursue it because I thought it was ridiculous and should have been challenged even though we could not benefit.

Whether the fact that meant we ended up allowing ourselves to be a victim of this rule has set a precedent so it is enforceable I have no idea.

Post Reply