Paul Deacon

[THE 18th Man]

just so i get this right i will use Deacon as an example

Deacon Coaching Role = £150,000 per year
Deacon Playing = £1,000 per year

does that a way of getting round the salary cap

is thats allowed lets pay Slater £400,000 a year for coaching and £1 a year for playing

[MrDave]

just so i get this right i will use Deacon as an example

Deacon Coaching Role = £150,000 per year
Deacon Playing = £1,000 per year

does that a way of getting round the salary cap

is thats allowed lets pay Slater £400,000 a year for coaching and £1 a year for playing

Nope, any money paid to a player buy the club counts on the salary cap. Paying Deacon £150,000 as a coach and £1,000 as a player would still total £151,000 on the salary cap.

It would be too easy for clubs to exploit such a gap in the rules, they could just pay players for doing other jobs for the club and pay them very little for being players.

[thegimble]

just so i get this right i will use Deacon as an example

Deacon Coaching Role = £150,000 per year
Deacon Playing = £1,000 per year

does that a way of getting round the salary cap

is thats allowed lets pay Slater £400,000 a year for coaching and £1 a year for playing

Nope, any money paid to a player buy the club counts on the salary cap. Paying Deacon £150,000 as a coach and £1,000 as a player would still total £151,000 on the salary cap.

It would be too easy for clubs to exploit such a gap in the rules, they could just pay players for doing other jobs for the club and pay them very little for being players.

But what if they paid him £25k this season but pay him more when hes a coach to make up any shortfall he may get. Would that be against the cap.

[exile in Tiger country]

But what if they paid him £25k this season but pay him more when hes a coach to make up any shortfall he may get. Would that be against the cap.

Only if Wigan do it.

[XIII]

But what if they paid him £25k this season but pay him more when hes a coach to make up any shortfall he may get. Would that be against the cap.

Only if Wigan do it.

Very True!

[MrDave]

But what if they paid him £25k this season but pay him more when hes a coach to make up any shortfall he may get. Would that be against the cap.

Only if Wigan do it.

That's probably the correct answer. If Deacon plays on a small wage for next season and retires the season after to a well paid coaching job then money from his coaching job shouldn't count on the cap.

BUT it wouldn't surprise me if the RFL decided that if Deacon signed the contract as a player in the knowledge he would get paid more when he became a coach that it was 'against the spirit of the cap.'

[lucky 13]

Nothing to stop us doing that, the spirit of the cap thing was on changeing payments after contract signed, ie deffared payment. Gleeson is alegedly on an increased payment this year to last but if he signed it that way no problems.
Wigan found a loop hole and the RL spat the dummy out this cant happen now with the live cap or at least I think :eh:

[DaveO]

Nothing to stop us doing that, the spirit of the cap thing was on changeing payments after contract signed, ie deffared payment. Gleeson is alegedly on an increased payment this year to last but if he signed it that way no problems.

That was different in that the club didn't renegotiate an existing contract DOWN so they could free up cap space.

Giving Gleeson a pay rise is no different than giving Tomkins one.

So they could pay Deacon £25K for this coming season as a player (or player/coach)and £150K as a coach in 2011 and there would be no problem. But if he took one step onto the pitch as a player in 2011 the full £150K would count on the cap.

Wigan found a loop hole and the RL spat the dummy out this cant happen now with the live cap or at least I think :eh:

The RFL were reacting to a pathetic witch hunt in my opinion. Deferring wages to manage the cap has been allowed in the NRL for years. So it was hardly an unknown practice in professional RL.

Dave

[DaveO]

Nope, any money paid to a player buy the club counts on the salary cap. Paying Deacon £150,000 as a coach and £1,000 as a player would still total £151,000 on the salary cap.

That is correct but there is one thing people forget when they say signing a player is OK if he is on a low wage.

Assuming we are talking senior players here such as Deacon they will still be one of our top 25 highest paid players and the £1.6m cap can only be divided amongst 25 players.

There is another £50k pot in addition intended to pay junior players who get the odd game but if we sign Deacon even on a low wage he will be of our top 25 highest paid players and if he isn't then his wage would have to come out of that £50K pot thus making it very hard to use it for its intended purpose.

So signing Deacon will IMO take up one of the 25 slots so the question is, is he worth one of those places?

I like the idea of cover for the half backs but if there is a slot in the 25 available I'd prefer it to be used for a prop.

Dave

[j658]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 361832.stm

Its looking more likely Deacon willl come now Orford has signed for the Bulls (as was rumoured).

My question is how much input has Maguire had into this deal?? Has he already identified a possible weakness in the halves? Will Tommy move to hooker, if so where does that leave mcillorum & piggy? Would Deacon be happy solely providing cover with a view to a coaching role??