Page 3 of 4
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:37 pm
by shaunedwardsfanclub
markill wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:53 pm
shaunedwardsfanclub wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:41 am
Woody1989 wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 9:23 am
I don't see why that should count on Wires cap. She's not playing for the mens team so it makes no sense to include her salary on the mens teams cap.
It would also reduce incentive for clubs to run womens teams as it would reduce the amount they could pay in salary to the mens team. Surely it would be better to give them their own cap?
I can understand your view but, if true, it should be declared on the club's salary cap, as defined by the regulations. If it isn't, then it would open the floodgates as teams could get around the rules and exceed the cap by vast amounts.
It does open some questions up. Although the rules also state: "The HDPGS shall then determine whether they should be included in a players Salary Cap Value" (HDPGS is the head of competitions and salary cap at RFL, Samantha Allen). So, that means there is some scope for payments to spouses as long as it's declared and has a decision on it before the payments start I guess. So legitimate, agreed payments would be ok.
For example, if Lockers was married to our physio, but our physio was suitably qualified and paid at the market rate, and Wigan declared all this, then I can't see there being an issue. Or, what if one player married another player and they both played for the same club (an even more likely scenario if they put a cap on the Womens teams, as there are already relationships like this about the game), they wouldn't both count as two players would they.
The idea of trying to promote the development of the womens game, and Roxy Mura being a talented and experienced player, may be enough for the RFL to say the money to her is legitimate. She could also have other roles at the club that make up her salary, like community coaching etc. Because doesn't Rachel Thompson have a similar role at Wigan that I assume she is paid something for, even if not as full-time?
Personally, whilst it's an interesting topic, I don't see it as something to get too upset about.
I can tell you that Wigan are not happy about it!
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 1:12 pm
by markill
I'll just repeat on the rules, as there is a caveat that means the salary cap rules are not hard and fast as you seem to have interpreted DaveO.
"The HDPGS shall then determine whether they should be included in a players Salary Cap Value" (HDPGS is the head of competitions and salary cap at RFL, Samantha Allen). So, that means there is some scope for payments to spouses as long as it's declared to and agreed by the HDPGS.
Of course, it's a whole other argument as to whether Roxy Mura being paid is to play is right or whatever she's paid is fair. Without seeing her contract with Warrington or why the RFL HDPGS might have decided her pay shouldn't be added to BMM's salary cap value, I feel it's premature to call foul play or illegality or ineptitude etc.
Now, if you guys know much more details than has been presented here about the case and the circumstances then by all means your indignation may be warranted. Based on what I see, I feel there's no reason to get too upset about it if the right processes have been followed and would be followed the same way in other similar cases.
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 1:47 pm
by fozzieskem
Storm in a tea cup this people getting froffed up for no reason.
Now when the book keepers at the RFl reach the letter W and dust themselves off and sharpen their quills to observe warringtons books for this season we will k ow then,so for season 2019,that should be what 2021 feb time
Till then who cares more important things to worry about
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 9:50 pm
by tom g
IF (and I have no evidence to support it either way) Roxy is being paid to play by Warrington then so be it! At the end of the day, she puts her body on the line for her club the same as Ben, so if Warrington choose to pay her for playing in the primrose and blue then that is their look out. At the end of the day she was pulling on the Saints shirt last year and I can't imagine that they were paying her anything. If Roxy was sat in their back office being paid to do nowt then that is a different matter but that is not the case. IF she is getting paid then good for her and here is hoping that this it is a trend that will spread to the rest of the girls who invest the time and energy to training their socks off and playing for their clubs!
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 10:56 pm
by shaunedwardsfanclub
I don't disagree with that, but like it or not as the rules stand they are in breach. Change the rules, simples!
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 11:41 pm
by tom g
I am not sure it is that clear cut. Your argument is premised on the fact that she is being paid because she is the wife of a male first team player. So if, as I understand is the case, Roxy does work with the Wolves's Community Foundation then surely that changes the situation entirely as arguably she would be being paid legitimately for work for the club. In any event, there are women players who are supposedly working for both our club and other Super League clubs within the community sector as their day jobs - indeed they were doing so last year. Why is this any different just because she happens to be married to Ben?
Don't get me wrong, I dislike the Wire as much as the next Cherry and White fan but this seems to be a complete and utter non-story on the face of it.
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:19 am
by shaunedwardsfanclub
tom g wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 11:41 pm
I am not sure it is that clear cut. Your argument is premised on the fact that she is being paid because she is the wife of a male first team player. So if, as I understand is the case, Roxy does work with the Wolves's Community Foundation then surely that changes the situation entirely as arguably she would be being paid legitimately for work for the club. In any event, there are women players who are supposedly working for both our club and other Super League clubs within the community sector as their day jobs - indeed they were doing so last year. Why is this any different just because she happens to be married to Ben?
Don't get me wrong, I dislike the Wire as much as the next Cherry and White fan but this seems to be a complete and utter non-story on the face of it.
Who are these other women? Are they married to professional rugby league players at the same club? I don't dislike Wire but we either have rules or we don't and if we do they have got to be applied fairly and equitably. Now, if Warrington have been given exemption then fair enough. The RFL need to announce that and apply the same rules to other clubs. Whether we like it or not, as things stand, paying Ben's wife could be perceived as a way of getting around the cap.
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 11:19 pm
by DaveO
markill wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:12 pm
I'll just repeat on the rules, as there is a caveat that means the salary cap rules are not hard and fast as you seem to have interpreted DaveO.
"The HDPGS shall then determine whether they should be included in a players Salary Cap Value" (HDPGS is the head of competitions and salary cap at RFL, Samantha Allen). So, that means there is some scope for payments to spouses as long as it's declared to and agreed by the HDPGS.
You are misinterpreting the rules. The text you refer to comes at the end of section 5.2.2 which deals with who else makes payments to the player as in for example sponsors as opposed to the club directly.
The full text is:
"A club shall disclose the details of any agreements or arrangements (verbal or written)
between its players and any of the above parties promptly on becoming aware of the same. The HDPGS shall then determine whether they shall be included in in a players Salary Cap Value"
This is clearly to do with whether or not 3rd party payments to the player should be counted on the cap. Not whether payments made by the club to the player or his relatives including his wife as defined in section 5.2.1 should be.
The bit in bold is key. The club paying a players wife a salary is
not an arrangement between the
player and his wife! It's the club making a payment that is explicitly listed in section 5.2.1 as a payment that should count on the salary cap value. There are no exceptions listed in section 5.2.1.
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 11:42 pm
by Woody1989
DaveO wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 11:19 pm
markill wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:12 pm
I'll just repeat on the rules, as there is a caveat that means the salary cap rules are not hard and fast as you seem to have interpreted DaveO.
"The HDPGS shall then determine whether they should be included in a players Salary Cap Value" (HDPGS is the head of competitions and salary cap at RFL, Samantha Allen). So, that means there is some scope for payments to spouses as long as it's declared to and agreed by the HDPGS.
You are misinterpreting the rules. The text you refer to comes at the end of section 5.2.2 which deals with who else makes payments to the player as in for example sponsors as opposed to the club directly.
The full text is:
"A club shall disclose the details of any agreements or arrangements (verbal or written)
between its players and any of the above parties promptly on becoming aware of the same. The HDPGS shall then determine whether they shall be included in in a players Salary Cap Value"
This is clearly to do with whether or not 3rd party payments to the player should be counted on the cap. Not whether payments made by the club to the player or his relatives including his wife as defined in section 5.2.1 should be.
The bit in bold is key. The club paying a players wife a salary is
not an arrangement between the
player and his wife! It's the club making a payment that is explicitly listed in section 5.2.1 as a payment that should count on the salary cap value. There are no exceptions listed in section 5.2.1.
I'm not sure how Markill has misinterpreted the rules exactly? Seems the key bit is the bit he mentioned, 'The HDPGS shall then determine whether they shall be included in in a players Salary Cap Value'. In other words, it's not automatically declared on the cap, there's scope for exemptions (even if it's not made clear exactly how much scope that is).
Re: Murdoch Massila
Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 12:57 pm
by markill
DaveO wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 11:19 pm
markill wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:12 pm
I'll just repeat on the rules, as there is a caveat that means the salary cap rules are not hard and fast as you seem to have interpreted DaveO.
"The HDPGS shall then determine whether they should be included in a players Salary Cap Value" (HDPGS is the head of competitions and salary cap at RFL, Samantha Allen). So, that means there is some scope for payments to spouses as long as it's declared to and agreed by the HDPGS.
You are misinterpreting the rules. The text you refer to comes at the end of section 5.2.2 which deals with who else makes payments to the player as in for example sponsors as opposed to the club directly.
The full text is:
"A club shall disclose the details of any agreements or arrangements (verbal or written)
between its players and any of the above parties promptly on becoming aware of the same. The HDPGS shall then determine whether they shall be included in in a players Salary Cap Value"
This is clearly to do with whether or not 3rd party payments to the player should be counted on the cap. Not whether payments made by the club to the player or his relatives including his wife as defined in section 5.2.1 should be.
The bit in bold is key. The club paying a players wife a salary is
not an arrangement between the
player and his wife! It's the club making a payment that is explicitly listed in section 5.2.1 as a payment that should count on the salary cap value. There are no exceptions listed in section 5.2.1.
Fair dos. Yes I've interpreted the caveat to apply to the whole section 5.2 and not just that subsection 5.2.2 as you highlight. So I agree it would appear to be against the rules if the payments are true, and if it isn't being included in BMM's salary cap value - two things we do not know of course.
Although I would still suggest that this isn't the purpose of the rules. I would expect it to become caveated in some way, shape or form as lots of other section of the regulations are. Anyone with appropriate skills getting a reasonable market-value wage for those skills shouldn't be prevented from employment on the basis of their spouses employment, unless there is a clear conflict of interest. I'm not sure there would be here under those provisions.