If St Helens broke the cap...

[gpartin]

DaveO posted:

Well Saints won everything last season while breaking the cap so you can't gain more than that and of course the season before Bradford broke the cap as we did and they won the GF.

Dave

Don't know if the quoting worked but definitely this year and probably last year staying up meant/means more than any trophy?

[DaveO]

gpartin posted:

DaveO posted:

Well Saints won everything last season while breaking the cap so you can't gain more than that and of course the season before Bradford broke the cap as we did and they won the GF.

Dave

Don't know if the quoting worked but definitely this year and probably last year staying up meant/means more than any trophy?

I agree but the point is the punishments have no credibility if they only affect the teams threatened with relegation more than those at the top of the league.

Saints and Bradford will not and did not have their trophies taken away, prize money taken back and so on.

It simply says if you are high up in the league you can ignore the salary cap penalties.

Dave

[robjoenz]

What do you suggest DaveO? You can't have one rule for one set of clubs and one rule for another, it must be consistent.

[JIMH]

what i have a problem with is how we look at the cap over here. Lets say St helens broke the cap by getting to and winning the grand final lastyear, because the punishment is only this year they are allowed to keep prize money won for that. What if St helens are a team who only got to use the full £1.8 (whatever the figure is) of there salaray cap because they could count prize money as income. i.e 50% of income used on the cap. is the prize money counted?

we need rid of relegation so we can monitor the cap on a day by day basis and if a team go over the cap they lose points prior to play off for that season and make it punishment fit for purpose, fine a team enough point to finish bottom or out of top 6 etc. it needs to be a worthwhile punsishment but i dont think we should have relegation.

ALSO i dont agree with the cap anyway, in my eyes its a restriction of trade and only there to stop clubs going under. every club should be able to spend what they want as long as there profit and loss accounts at the end of the year show a profit.

[warrior till i die]

But does anyone know how much have we gone over by? Were all speculating at the minute and unlike last year the rfl havent released details of how much they feel each club has gone over the cap by

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:
What do you suggest DaveO? You can't have one rule for one set of clubs and one rule for another, it must be consistent.

Instead of deducting points you say regardless of how many points you have if you go over by x% then your points tally is reduced to a certain number.

So lets say Wigan and Bradford broke the cap last season by the same amount.

Te RFL could say because you both went over by x% you now have the lesser of 12 league points or how many you have already plus a £100K fine.

Some clubs could end up with a £100K fine and no deduction if they were down the bottom anyway but so what?

The point is it would be equally disastrous for a high flying club as it would one at the bottom.

Dave

[JimmyDean]

DaveO posted:

robjoenz posted:
What do you suggest DaveO? You can't have one rule for one set of clubs and one rule for another, it must be consistent.

Instead of deducting points you say regardless of how many points you have if you go over by x% then your points tally is reduced to a certain number.

So lets say Wigan and Bradford broke the cap last season by the same amount.

Te RFL could say because you both went over by x% you now have the lesser of 12 league points or how many you have already plus a £100K fine.

Some clubs could end up with a £100K fine and no deduction if they were down the bottom anyway but so what?

The point is it would be equally disastrous for a high flying club as it would one at the bottom.

Dave

Teams that consistantly break the rules should be punished to the max. The arrogance that they can break the rules that everyone else sticks by is amazing. The whole thing is a shambles,heads should roll.

[ian.birchall]

ancientnloyal posted:
Yeh but it seemed like im picking on st helens but it's aimed at the salary cap as a whole, which is discussed in other topics... i was meant to highlight the super league title advantage/disadvantage with the Cap.

Nothing wrong with that at all!!

[OJ]

Thought it was interesting on the rugby league programme the other night that Nine was a guest on, the journalist (can't remember who he was) sounded like he was practically challenging a super league club to take the RFL to court because the salary cap is a restraint of trade and I have to agree with that. Don't know how long the figure has been hovvering around the same sort of figure and even have an idea the ceiling was lowered recently but there cannot be many occupations where wages are expected to be lowered rather than rise - I suppose it has made a more level playing field in some respects and helped the less well off clubs but if the cap lifted a % each year it would at least be something.
A lady shareholder who rang in also made an interesting remark when she said that the air fair for bringing Michael Dobson's parents over last year was also included in the salary cap :eusa4: now I don't begrudge it them for one moment but it does seem a tad OTT that we were paying for it in the first place or am I just being naive?

[mike binder]

as i keep saying there is only 1 fair way
SCRAP THE CAP