Salary Cap

[mike binder]

oldtimer posted:
who was the man in charge when the salary cap was first brought in?,who is the man now breaching the cap knowing any penalty is only valid next season?

Uncle mo isnt it great having inside infomation

[oldtimer]

and you still think this person? fit to run our CLUB :doz:

[Fraggle]

oldtimer posted:
who was the man in charge when the salary cap was first brought in?,who is the man now breaching the cap knowing any penalty is only valid next season?

You're clutching at straws again, in an attempt to have a dig at ML. Having done a quick search on the internet, I found this article from 2003:-

http://www.playtheball.com/news/news.asp?newsid=7588

The salary cap, introduced four years ago by the clubs themselves to prevent clubs going bust, restricts spending on players' wages to 50% of income up to a maximum of £1.8million.

Ok, so ML was Chairman of the RFL (not Superleague) at that time the discussions were taking place, but he was already back at Wigan before it was introduced in 2000 (source http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/ ... 07,00.html), and the implications from the stories mentioned above is that the salary cap was the decision of the clubs, not individuals. The same Guardian article clearly states ML and DW's opposition to the salary cap:

Then there was the salary cap, which Lindsay and Whelan resented as a restriction. It presented particular problems for Wigan, who still had more than their share of the game's glamour players and were battling rugby union to retain the likes of Jason Robinson, Gary Connolly and Kris Radlinski.

ML would have been aware of those issues as soon as he returned to the club, and probably beforehand.

You're trying to suggest ML is the reason for the salary cap, and I'm not at all convinced you can blame that one on him alone.

[DaveO]

oldtimer posted:
who was the man in charge when the salary cap was first brought in?,

Richard Lewis.

Mo was in charge at the RFL when the old 50% salary cap was brought in which is very different to what we have today.

The current salary cap is operating with a fixed maximum wage bill of 50% of turnover or £1.75 million whichever is the smaller figure.

When that was brought in Mo was back at Wigan and opposed the change.

who is the man now breaching the cap knowing any penalty is only valid next season?

You tell me. According to the club and top the RFL Wigan are not breaking the salary cap.

Dave

[GeoffN]

The salary cap, introduced four years ago by the clubs themselves to prevent clubs going bust...

I still don't understand exactly how the 20/20 rule contributes to that.

[DaveO]

GeoffN posted:

The salary cap, introduced four years ago by the clubs themselves to prevent clubs going bust...

I still don't understand exactly how the 20/20 rule contributes to that.

It doesn't and it was the original 50% of income salary cap that was introduced to stop clubs going bust. The newer flat rate cap is also about levelling the playing field.

The 20/20 was introduced when the the 50% of income salary cap was introduced.

Even with the old 50% of income cap you could argue rich clubs would have still been able to stockpile young players paying them more than £20K a year.

But preventing that was not the real motive for the 20/20. The real motive was to force clubs to include young players in their first team squad. So by limiting the number of high earners the RFL thought this would force places to be made available to younger players.

No I am all for clubs bringing on young players but the 20/20 has never really worked as intended.

It was originally the 20/20/20 whereby if a player played 20 first team games he had to be included in the top 20 players regardless of what he earned. The idea being it forced the clubs to have the young player in their squad.

So the motive was always to get young players into squads.

Now I think the motive has changed. Like the flat rate salary cap the 20/20 is now seen as a way to force the better off clubs to offload talent. If a club like Wigan produces a lot of good young players it is forced to release young players every year, some who it no doubt would want to keep a bit longer to see if they make the grade.

This is now seen as spreading the talent, not forcing clubs to have young players in their squads.

I would guess a lot of young players released don't go in to find other clubs and are lost to the sport.

We already know a squad of 20 experienced plays isn't enough when injuries kick in. Ask Cullen!

So the whole rule is flawed. It never worked as originally intended and now in what I believe to be its new guise it has other bad side effects but unfortunately the clubs (some of them) and the RFL seem wedded to it.

Dave

[Fraggle]

GeoffN posted:

The salary cap, introduced four years ago by the clubs themselves to prevent clubs going bust...

I still don't understand exactly how the 20/20 rule contributes to that.

I guess it's to stop teams having a squad of 50 players because they wouldn't be able to find 30 people daft enough to play high-intensity, top flight rugby for the same money they would get doing a paper-round. Having said that, we're already up to squad number 37 and it's not impossible we'll get to 40 before the end of the year, so we're not far off...!

[GeoffN]

Fraggle posted:

GeoffN posted:

The salary cap, introduced four years ago by the clubs themselves to prevent clubs going bust...

I still don't understand exactly how the 20/20 rule contributes to that.

I guess it's to stop teams having a squad of 50 players because they wouldn't be able to find 30 people daft enough to play high-intensity, top flight rugby for the same money they would get doing a paper-round. Having said that, we're already up to squad number 37 and it's not impossible we'll get to 40 before the end of the year, so we're not far off...!

But if they want a squad of 50, who would then be earning an average of £35k each to be under the cap total, why not? Or, at the other extreme, 17 players earning 100k each. All clubs have to balance depth v quality, but why have the decision enforced on them?

[Alex the Warrior]

I'm sure that the salary cap wouldn't stand up to legal challenge and that one should be made. If there is to be one, it should be based on a percentage of turnover. If a club can't work out not to do what Cardiff City FC did and spend 105% of turnover on wages then they deserve to go under.

In an age where the game is getting even faster and the players stronger, you need more players not fewer to cope with injuries. The prizes are being handed out to clubs who have enough senior players available at the right time, not necessarily the best teams.

The 20/20 rule is ludicrous. Would you want to be a kid risking life and limb trying to tackle Vainikolo if you were getting peanuts to do it? If you develop a talented player, within a couple of years you either have to reward him with a decent salary or let him go. There is no reward for bringing through talent.

[Fraggle]

GeoffN posted:

Fraggle posted:

GeoffN posted: I still don't understand exactly how the 20/20 rule contributes to that.

I guess it's to stop teams having a squad of 50 players because they wouldn't be able to find 30 people daft enough to play high-intensity, top flight rugby for the same money they would get doing a paper-round. Having said that, we're already up to squad number 37 and it's not impossible we'll get to 40 before the end of the year, so we're not far off...!

But if they want a squad of 50, who would then be earning an average of £35k each to be under the cap total, why not? Or, at the other extreme, 17 players earning 100k each. All clubs have to balance depth v quality, but why have the decision enforced on them?

Of course, there's nothing to stop them having 87.5 players at £19.9k each, but I think the cost of shirts might get a bit excessive!