Salary Cap

Got a hot rumour from a source inside the club, or just something you heard down the pub? Then what are you waiting for, post it on The Rumour Mill.
User avatar
EagleEyePie
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:42 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by EagleEyePie »

Mike wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:24 pm I think Saints hit something similar with international bonuses putting them over. I don't think all possible earnings are included in the cap value at the start, but I imagine its the actual earnings that have to be declared at the end, so there could be a discrepency at the end of the year. Apparently ours was around 3k out of 1800k, which isn't that much, but does show how much up to the cap we're paying this season.
Pretty sure they brought in the cap value calculation as a direct result of Saints' issues with international bonuses. It was viewed as too harsh because things like international bonuses were a fairly standard inclusion in contracts (and a fair bonus to award) but were almost impossible to predict. The same for appearance bonuses, as fringe players could end up playing more often than expected during an injury crisis. Hence, all payments that relate to the current season are taken into account beforehand to prevent late breaches due to unexpected circumstances.

International, appearance and try scoring bonuses are definitely included as part of the process of determining a players salary cap value and a player can exceed the cap value if they get paid more than the cap value determined at the start of the season without clubs having to add the extra amount to their salary cap calculations.
pedro
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:37 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by pedro »

international bonus's are exempt arent they?

International Bonuses – Bonuses paid for international representation are excluded up to specified maximums;
DaveO
Posts: 15009
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by DaveO »

nathan_rugby wrote:
EagleEyePie wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:40 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:17 pm The question was referring to Wigan not playing him to stop an increase in salary which would be triggered by appearances.

To explain.

Let’s say hypothetically his salary is £20k per year (£1,600 per month) & that results in our salary cap being bang on. If his contract stipulates his salary goes up to £30k (£2,500 per month) after 15 appearances then his wage will be £2,500 per month from that change.

Since my example had us bang on the cap based on his £20k salary, the increase, even if just a few thousand, would take us over.
Surely DaveO's point on this was correct? A player gets given a salary cap value at the start of the season which considers base salary and all payments that could be (but not necessarily that are) paid and appearance bonuses are calculated on the basis that a player earning over £20,000 will play 18 matches in a year and if it's under £20,000 then it's calculated on the basis they will play 5 matches in a year.

So player appearance bonuses can't take a club over the salary cap unexpectedly, even if a players value was calculated based on then playing 5 matches and they end up playing 22. The cap rules stipulate that a player can receive more than their cap value, but all that counts on the cap is their original value.

Even if a contract stipulated a players base salary would increase based on appearances I'm pretty sure their value would be calculated on the likelihood of them reaching that number of appearances, much like how calculations are made for other bonuses. I think the only way to change a players cap value would be to agree a brand new contract mid-season that alters their payment from that point onwards.
You need to re read.

Not talking about player appearance bonuses but talking about an increased wage / contract on the back of hitting a number of games in a season.

For example a player getting paid £3000 a month as standard but that going up to £4000 a month after 15 appearances.
This discussion started based on a question of would O’Neil have had restricted appearances due to an appearance based clause in his contract taking Wigan over the cap.

I certainly wasn’t discussing why Wigan were over the cap but commenting on the speculation that is why O’Neil was dropped.

As I explained the rules state if a club pays a junior player £20k a year he can play as many salary cap qualified games as the club likes.

Therefore it would be stupid of the club to put themselves in a position where it’s junior players would have to be dropped to prevent an appearance based wage rise. Such a wage rise would require their salary cap value to be recalculated and for SL clubs the cap is “live” and this would happen mid season. So your example of a £3k to £4k pay rise would also trigger a salary cap reevaluation. If on reevaluation the club would end up over the cap they wouldn’t be allowed to break the cap.

If the club was daft enough to put itself in this position where an automatic pay rise would put them over the then it would be basically forced to deny the player a pay rise by not playing him.

I therefore suggested the sensible way for this to work would be appearance based pay rises would qualify a player for a pay rise for the NEXT salary cap year once they surpassed the appearance threshold “this” season. No idea if that is the case or not but it’s not really relevant other than to suggest this would be the sensible way to organise it.
Dan2266
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:47 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Dan2266 »

The cap breach only occurred because we didnt nominate a 2nd “marquee” player, in season wage rises are normal and are accounted for, the breach was literally £3,400 and was in relation to 1 player in 1 game. Wigan then declared marquee dispensation against Hastings and were therefore miles under the cap, hence no fine or publicity. That is as simple as I can put it.
buttmonkey2
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:50 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by buttmonkey2 »

Dan2266 wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:56 am in season wage rises are normal and are accounted for,
Thanks Dan

Probably should have put the words "should be" in front of accounted for. If accountants did their job correctly then this would never have happened but explains to everyone what does occur regards wages as players gain first team experience

Or as happened once previously when an agents travel expenses ended up being counted on our cap
Back by demand.
Post Reply