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.nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pmWhy?
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.
Salary Cap
-
- Posts: 4673
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm
Re: Salary Cap
Re: Salary Cap
I think we only just declared someone now?Charriots Offiah wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:59 pmThat’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.nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pmWhy?
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.
-
- Posts: 4673
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:14 pm
Re: Salary Cap
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.Mike wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:07 pmI think we only just declared someone now?Charriots Offiah wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:59 pmThat’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.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.
Re: Salary Cap
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.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.DaveO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:03 pmIt doesn’t work like that.Dan2266 wrote: Thats the cap set by the RFL on squad value, theres a secondary cap (wages) which is the punishable cap.
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.
Your point is separate.
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.
-
- Posts: 4299
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm
Re: Salary Cap
The question was referring to Wigan not playing him to stop an increase in salary which would be triggered by appearances.DaveO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pmHow is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.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.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.
Your point is separate.
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.
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."
Re: Salary Cap
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.nathan_rugby wrote:The question was referring to Wigan not playing him to stop an increase in salary which would be triggered by appearances.DaveO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pmHow is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.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.
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.
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.
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 [emoji81]
-
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:32 pm
Re: Salary Cap
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 playersDaveO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:14 pmI 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.nathan_rugby wrote:The question was referring to Wigan not playing him to stop an increase in salary which would be triggered by appearances.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.
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.
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 [emoji81]
Re: Salary Cap
nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:17 pmThe question was referring to Wigan not playing him to stop an increase in salary which would be triggered by appearances.DaveO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:07 pmHow is is separate? The point I was responding to was the idea O’Neil wasn’t played much because it affected the salary cap.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.
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.
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.
Re: Salary Cap
Exactly why Lenners referenced Pearce Paul's contract at the forumWarriorWinger wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:09 pmTo 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 playersDaveO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:14 pmI 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.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.
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 [emoji81]
-
- Posts: 4299
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:12 pm
Re: Salary Cap
£20k bad example. £30k, £40k, doesn’t matter.DaveO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:14 pmI 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.nathan_rugby wrote:The question was referring to Wigan not playing him to stop an increase in salary which would be triggered by appearances.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.
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.
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 [emoji81]
Bomhead - "Lockers to prop."