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.
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Charriots Offiah »

nathan_rugby wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pm
Charriots Offiah wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 6:18 pm
Dan2266 wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:46 pm

Im not sure who it was, it could of been anyone on over the amount we breached it by… which wasn't a lot. say it was £25k we could of just claimed a player on £30k as marquee
Faz would have made more sense than Jacko.
Why?

If we only needed to cover an extra few thousand it doesn’t really matter as long as whoever it was enabled the amount we had gone over to be covered.
That’s true but it is good practice to make sure that the player named has the biggest benefit to the salary cap. What would have happened if we had wanted to sign a player mid-season and we hadn’t freed up enough cap because we had nominated the wrong player. This is pretty basic stuff and the administrator should get it right.
User avatar
Mike
Site Admin
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Mike »

Charriots Offiah wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:59 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pm
Charriots Offiah wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 6:18 pm

Faz would have made more sense than Jacko.
Why?

If we only needed to cover an extra few thousand it doesn’t really matter as long as whoever it was enabled the amount we had gone over to be covered.
That’s true but it is good practice to make sure that the player named has the biggest benefit to the salary cap. What would have happened if we had wanted to sign a player mid-season and we hadn’t freed up enough cap because we had nominated the wrong player. This is pretty basic stuff and the administrator should get it right.
I think we only just declared someone now?
Charriots Offiah
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Charriots Offiah »

Mike wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:07 pm
Charriots Offiah wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:59 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pm

Why?

If we only needed to cover an extra few thousand it doesn’t really matter as long as whoever it was enabled the amount we had gone over to be covered.
That’s true but it is good practice to make sure that the player named has the biggest benefit to the salary cap. What would have happened if we had wanted to sign a player mid-season and we hadn’t freed up enough cap because we had nominated the wrong player. This is pretty basic stuff and the administrator should get it right.
I think we only just declared someone now?
I don’t disagree but this is an error that should not occur. IFL and Rads should be all over this, at the end of the day they carry the can.
DaveO
Posts: 15128
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by DaveO »

nathan_rugby wrote:
DaveO wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pm
Dan2266 wrote: Thats the cap set by the RFL on squad value, theres a secondary cap (wages) which is the punishable cap.
It doesn’t work like that.

The initial salary cap value is calculated based on the top 25 earners regardless if they play in a salary cap relevant match plus any other players who play in a salary cap relevant match unless they are under 21 on 31st August and earn less than £20k. The wording on this in the rules is a bit confusing but I am pretty certain that is what it means for under 21 players.

A non-top 25 earning player acquires a salary cap value as soon as you play him in a salary cap relevant match. So if O’Neil was contracted on say £24k a year and started playing half way through the year he’d get a salary cap value as soon as he played ONE salary cap relevant match.

His salary cap value would also be £24k not £12k despite only (potentially) playing in half the games.

So my contention is O’Neil either cost the club nothing on the cap because he earned less than £20k (I am assuming he was under 21 on August 31st I have not checked). Or if he earned more than £20k his full wage counted on the cap after he made his first appearance in a salary cap relevant match (assuming he wasn’t a top 25 earner and was already being counted on the cap which I am sure would not be the case).

Which means either way, how many games he played after his first one was irrelevant as far as the cap goes. Either he didn’t count at all or his full wage counted so the club would get no financial benefit from restricting his appearances.
I think the point is that some players at Wigan got increased salaries during the season on the back of the number of games they played.

Your point is separate.
How is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.

If you sign a player half way through a salary cap year you have to declare his wages and if you are going to pay him £4k a month then you end up with a salary cap value of £48k, not £24k. This is to stop clubs signing a top class player for a month or two, paying him a fortune and not having it affect the cap much.

So if O’Neil acquired a salary cap value by being paid enough to do so, he would count on the cap in the same way and it wouldn’t matter if he played one game or ten.

If the club gave him or anybody else a pay rise then it’s going to affect the players salary cap value and as it’s a live cap in SL, it will do so immediately and again once his new salary cap value is set, it doesn’t matter how many games he plays.
nathan_rugby
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by nathan_rugby »

DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pm
nathan_rugby wrote:
DaveO wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pm

It doesn’t work like that.

The initial salary cap value is calculated based on the top 25 earners regardless if they play in a salary cap relevant match plus any other players who play in a salary cap relevant match unless they are under 21 on 31st August and earn less than £20k. The wording on this in the rules is a bit confusing but I am pretty certain that is what it means for under 21 players.

A non-top 25 earning player acquires a salary cap value as soon as you play him in a salary cap relevant match. So if O’Neil was contracted on say £24k a year and started playing half way through the year he’d get a salary cap value as soon as he played ONE salary cap relevant match.

His salary cap value would also be £24k not £12k despite only (potentially) playing in half the games.

So my contention is O’Neil either cost the club nothing on the cap because he earned less than £20k (I am assuming he was under 21 on August 31st I have not checked). Or if he earned more than £20k his full wage counted on the cap after he made his first appearance in a salary cap relevant match (assuming he wasn’t a top 25 earner and was already being counted on the cap which I am sure would not be the case).

Which means either way, how many games he played after his first one was irrelevant as far as the cap goes. Either he didn’t count at all or his full wage counted so the club would get no financial benefit from restricting his appearances.
I think the point is that some players at Wigan got increased salaries during the season on the back of the number of games they played.

Your point is separate.
How is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.

If you sign a player half way through a salary cap year you have to declare his wages and if you are going to pay him £4k a month then you end up with a salary cap value of £48k, not £24k. This is to stop clubs signing a top class player for a month or two, paying him a fortune and not having it affect the cap much.

So if O’Neil acquired a salary cap value by being paid enough to do so, he would count on the cap in the same way and it wouldn’t matter if he played one game or ten.

If the club gave him or anybody else a pay rise then it’s going to affect the players salary cap value and as it’s a live cap in SL, it will do so immediately and again once his new salary cap value is set, it doesn’t matter how many games he plays.
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.
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."
DaveO
Posts: 15128
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by DaveO »

nathan_rugby wrote:
DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pm
nathan_rugby wrote: I think the point is that some players at Wigan got increased salaries during the season on the back of the number of games they played.

Your point is separate.
How is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.

If you sign a player half way through a salary cap year you have to declare his wages and if you are going to pay him £4k a month then you end up with a salary cap value of £48k, not £24k. This is to stop clubs signing a top class player for a month or two, paying him a fortune and not having it affect the cap much.

So if O’Neil acquired a salary cap value by being paid enough to do so, he would count on the cap in the same way and it wouldn’t matter if he played one game or ten.

If the club gave him or anybody else a pay rise then it’s going to affect the players salary cap value and as it’s a live cap in SL, it will do so immediately and again once his new salary cap value is set, it doesn’t matter how many games he plays.
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.
I think we are on the same page. If he was on £20k he wouldn’t count on the cap at all no matter how often he played.

If Wigan had a contract with him that said if he played X games he got a pay rise then yes he’d then acquire a salary cap value. This is obviously true.

However why would the club be so stupid as to agree a contract that changed a players wages mid season potentially taking them over the cap and forcing them to drop him?

I am sure the player would love it that he was being dropped to deny him a pay rise.

Surely the club would make any pay rise that was based on appearances apply in the following season? It would be bonkers to do otherwise as you would probably have several players on the same deal and the coach would see his selection choices limited in case a player played too often.

Then again we have Rads running things so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that’s what happens Image
WarriorWinger
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:32 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by WarriorWinger »

DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:14 pm
nathan_rugby wrote:
DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pm

How is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.

If you sign a player half way through a salary cap year you have to declare his wages and if you are going to pay him £4k a month then you end up with a salary cap value of £48k, not £24k. This is to stop clubs signing a top class player for a month or two, paying him a fortune and not having it affect the cap much.

So if O’Neil acquired a salary cap value by being paid enough to do so, he would count on the cap in the same way and it wouldn’t matter if he played one game or ten.

If the club gave him or anybody else a pay rise then it’s going to affect the players salary cap value and as it’s a live cap in SL, it will do so immediately and again once his new salary cap value is set, it doesn’t matter how many games he plays.
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.
I think we are on the same page. If he was on £20k he wouldn’t count on the cap at all no matter how often he played.

If Wigan had a contract with him that said if he played X games he got a pay rise then yes he’d then acquire a salary cap value. This is obviously true.

However why would the club be so stupid as to agree a contract that changed a players wages mid season potentially taking them over the cap and forcing them to drop him?

I am sure the player would love it that he was being dropped to deny him a pay rise.

Surely the club would make any pay rise that was based on appearances apply in the following season? It would be bonkers to do otherwise as you would probably have several players on the same deal and the coach would see his selection choices limited in case a player played too often.

Then again we have Rads running things so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that’s what happens Image
To be honest I think it is pretty standard in the youth set up to have an increment based on the number of first team appearances, cant remember who told me now as it was a number of years ago but it was one of the (ex) wigan players
Dan2266
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:47 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Dan2266 »

nathan_rugby wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:17 pm
DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pm
nathan_rugby wrote:
I think the point is that some players at Wigan got increased salaries during the season on the back of the number of games they played.

Your point is separate.
How is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.

If you sign a player half way through a salary cap year you have to declare his wages and if you are going to pay him £4k a month then you end up with a salary cap value of £48k, not £24k. This is to stop clubs signing a top class player for a month or two, paying him a fortune and not having it affect the cap much.

So if O’Neil acquired a salary cap value by being paid enough to do so, he would count on the cap in the same way and it wouldn’t matter if he played one game or ten.

If the club gave him or anybody else a pay rise then it’s going to affect the players salary cap value and as it’s a live cap in SL, it will do so immediately and again once his new salary cap value is set, it doesn’t matter how many games he plays.
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.

That's exactly what I'm saying happened, hence we then claimed dispensation for someone as a "Marquee" it took us under the cap, dissolving the problem.
Dan2266
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:47 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by Dan2266 »

WarriorWinger wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:09 pm
DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:14 pm
nathan_rugby wrote:
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.
I think we are on the same page. If he was on £20k he wouldn’t count on the cap at all no matter how often he played.

If Wigan had a contract with him that said if he played X games he got a pay rise then yes he’d then acquire a salary cap value. This is obviously true.

However why would the club be so stupid as to agree a contract that changed a players wages mid season potentially taking them over the cap and forcing them to drop him?

I am sure the player would love it that he was being dropped to deny him a pay rise.

Surely the club would make any pay rise that was based on appearances apply in the following season? It would be bonkers to do otherwise as you would probably have several players on the same deal and the coach would see his selection choices limited in case a player played too often.

Then again we have Rads running things so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that’s what happens Image
To be honest I think it is pretty standard in the youth set up to have an increment based on the number of first team appearances, cant remember who told me now as it was a number of years ago but it was one of the (ex) wigan players
Exactly why Lenners referenced Pearce Paul's contract at the forum
nathan_rugby
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm

Re: Salary Cap

Post by nathan_rugby »

DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:14 pm
nathan_rugby wrote:
DaveO wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pm

How is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.

If you sign a player half way through a salary cap year you have to declare his wages and if you are going to pay him £4k a month then you end up with a salary cap value of £48k, not £24k. This is to stop clubs signing a top class player for a month or two, paying him a fortune and not having it affect the cap much.

So if O’Neil acquired a salary cap value by being paid enough to do so, he would count on the cap in the same way and it wouldn’t matter if he played one game or ten.

If the club gave him or anybody else a pay rise then it’s going to affect the players salary cap value and as it’s a live cap in SL, it will do so immediately and again once his new salary cap value is set, it doesn’t matter how many games he plays.
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.
I think we are on the same page. If he was on £20k he wouldn’t count on the cap at all no matter how often he played.

If Wigan had a contract with him that said if he played X games he got a pay rise then yes he’d then acquire a salary cap value. This is obviously true.

However why would the club be so stupid as to agree a contract that changed a players wages mid season potentially taking them over the cap and forcing them to drop him?

I am sure the player would love it that he was being dropped to deny him a pay rise.

Surely the club would make any pay rise that was based on appearances apply in the following season? It would be bonkers to do otherwise as you would probably have several players on the same deal and the coach would see his selection choices limited in case a player played too often.

Then again we have Rads running things so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that’s what happens Image
£20k bad example. £30k, £40k, doesn’t matter.
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."
Post Reply