Points Reduction!!!

[JIMH]

sorry to keep this discussion going, but on a slightly different track im just wondering what people think about restriction of trade, am i right in thinking that we made a profit from last years trading figures? yet we are penalised for spending to much on wages.

Yes i know rules are rules but i think it sounds a bit daft that a club making a profit should be penalised for using the money whatever way they wish, i thought the principal reason for the salary cap was to try and stop clubs outspending and getting into financial dificulty, it doesnt seem to be working to me, London overspend and go bust, we underspend and get penalised, sounds like restriction of trade to me

[GeoffN]

JIMH posted:
sorry to keep this discussion going, but on a slightly different track im just wondering what people think about restriction of trade, am i right in thinking that we made a profit from last years trading figures? yet we are penalised for spending to much on wages.

Yes i know rules are rules but i think it sounds a bit daft that a club making a profit should be penalised for using the money whatever way they wish, i thought the principal reason for the salary cap was to try and stop clubs outspending and getting into financial dificulty, it doesnt seem to be working to me, London overspend and go bust, we underspend and get penalised, sounds like restriction of trade to me

I agree completely that the rules are wrong, as do most of us, but the point still remains that those were the rules and we, knowingly, broke them. As I've said, just because you disagree with a law is no excuse for deliberately breaking it.
Incidentally, the RFL quote "levelling the competition" as a secondary objective of the cap.

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE SALARY CAP
1.1 The principal purpose for The Rugby Football League’s Salary Cap is to restrict clubs’ main item of expenditure, players’ costs, to try and ensure, as far as possible, the long-term financial survival of rugby league clubs.
1.2 The secondary purpose is to improve the competitiveness of the League by restricting to a finite level of how much one club can spend on its playing staff

Personally, I see that as dragging the top clubs down to the level of the others, and penalising the well-run clubs who work on maximising their income.
IMO, they should be looking at improving the lower clubs rather than penalising the good ones, if they want to improve competitiveness.

[FROM A TO B]

Off on another one now.
I have suggested in the past (during my days of phoning GMR on most Sunday's), that the salary cap needs to be adjusted to allow home grown talent to come through.
Forget all the Basniak rulings or whatever they are called. Plain and simple if a player does not have a British parent and was born overseas (Aust NZ), then he is classed as an overseas player.
For every player a club has under the agreed quota of overseas, then they should be allowed an additional percentage to pay BRITISH players.
Ie. If limit is 3 then for each player under the 3 they could be allowed say and extra 80k. Therefore a team with no overseas players could afford to pay home grown talent and extra 240k between them.
A I missing something obvious? :conf:

[Fraggle]

FROM A TO B posted:
Off on another one now.
I have suggested in the past (during my days of phoning GMR on most Sunday's), that the salary cap needs to be adjusted to allow home grown talent to come through.
Forget all the Basniak rulings or whatever they are called. Plain and simple if a player does not have a British parent and was born overseas (Aust NZ), then he is classed as an overseas player.
For every player a club has under the agreed quota of overseas, then they should be allowed an additional percentage to pay BRITISH players.
Ie. If limit is 3 then for each player under the 3 they could be allowed say and extra 80k. Therefore a team with no overseas players could afford to pay home grown talent and extra 240k between them.
A I missing something obvious? :conf:

Yep, European Union freedom of movement and work regulations. You can't have just British players, it has to be expanded to cover the whole of the EU (particularly with our much-discussed-lately French friends in the league!) so your overseas definition has to be non-EU passport holders. Although it wouldn't make a massive difference, there aren't too many German or Lithuanian RL players around...

[GeoffN]

FROM A TO B posted:
Forget all the Basniak rulings or whatever they are called.

Unfortunately, the 'Basniak' ruling is legally binding, as are the Kolpak and Bosman rulings. In fact, they're called that because of the people who challenged existing practices in the law courts.

[FROM A TO B]

GeoffN posted:

FROM A TO B posted:
Forget all the Basniak rulings or whatever they are called.

Unfortunately, the 'Basniak' ruling is legally binding, as are the Kolpak and Bosman rulings. In fact, they're called that because of the people who challenged existing practices in the law courts.

I thought Basniak was a good ammalgamtion of the 2 rulings.
OK, if the rulings say that, then surely the RFL could put in a separate rule along the lines of my posting. It wouldn't be illegal, but would give clubs the option to reduce overseas players and pay more for "EU" talent.

[jimofwigan]

primrose-n-blue posted:
I could have a field day TROLLING at this mess...
but I wont stoop so low, your having a tough enough time at it as it is.

What I will say is though....
"How on earth did you manage to get away with only a 2 point deduction when the penalty for salary cap breach is 6 points?"
Could it be because the club had pleaded guilty?
I am aware that other clubs have had their penalty reduced on appeal...Wakey from 4 to 2.
Or perhaps could it depend on ther severity of the breach?

PnB :eusa18:

Thanks for the sympathy. Two points to make ( If you pardon the pun)
1)The let off at Rugby Legue beggers belief,all the following found guilty of breaching the Salary Cap
St Helens(2nd offence) Guilty Fined £5000
Hull Guilty fined £4000
Wakefield Guilty given a warning
Castleford Guilty given a warning
Wigan (1st offence) Guilty Fined £50,000 two points deducted
If you were an ailian just landed you would think that the people making the above judgement had something against Wigan, but that can't be true

2)The mittigating circuntances were the application of fair play by Wigan to TWO long term injured players Gareth Hock (16 months) & Sion Oloughlin (12 months)They simply asked that while they were out for the whole season that the sick pay be excluded from the sallary cap. This was to stop superlegue clubs dumping injured players. THE RL REPLY WAS SIMPLY "NO".So this salarry cap is a handicap to injured players so who they play for.The loud and clear message from Rugby League Headquarters is "IF YOU HAVE ANY LONG TERM INJURED PLAYERS GET SHUT"

[mike binder]

jimofwigan posted:

primrose-n-blue posted:
I could have a field day TROLLING at this mess...
but I wont stoop so low, your having a tough enough time at it as it is.

What I will say is though....
"How on earth did you manage to get away with only a 2 point deduction when the penalty for salary cap breach is 6 points?"
Could it be because the club had pleaded guilty?
I am aware that other clubs have had their penalty reduced on appeal...Wakey from 4 to 2.
Or perhaps could it depend on ther severity of the breach?

PnB :eusa18:

Thanks for the sympathy. Two points to make ( If you pardon the pun)
1)The let off at Rugby Legue beggers belief,all the following found guilty of breaching the Salary Cap
St Helens(2nd offence) Guilty Fined £5000
Hull Guilty fined £4000
Wakefield Guilty given a warning
Castleford Guilty given a warning
Wigan (1st offence) Guilty Fined £50,000 two points deducted
If you were an ailian just landed you would think that the people making the above judgement had something against Wigan, but that can't be true

2)The mittigating circuntances were the application of fair play by Wigan to TWO long term injured players Gareth Hock (16 months) & Sion Oloughlin (12 months)They simply asked that while they were out for the whole season that the sick pay be excluded from the sallary cap. This was to stop superlegue clubs dumping injured players. THE RL REPLY WAS SIMPLY "NO".So this salarry cap is a handicap to injured players so who they play for.The loud and clear message from Rugby League Headquarters is "IF YOU HAVE ANY LONG TERM INJURED PLAYERS GET SHUT"

you missed luke devico out of that who didnt play in sl brain carney who missed half the season and faz whos wages we paid till june or july.Dont want to defend ml but i think any club who faced that would of been in trouble and add radders to that now im getting a little symphathetic towards ML

[GeoffN]

mike binder posted:
you missed luke devico out of that who didnt play in sl brain carney who missed half the season and faz whos wages we paid till june or july.Dont want to defend ml but i think any club who faced that would of been in trouble and add radders to that now im getting a little symphathetic towards ML

I'm not. The Guisset signing, fair enough, as a straight swap for Davico, but that alone wouldn't have put us over. The McDonald & Botham signings - we had youngsters on the books (already accounted for in the cap budget) that would have done as well or better. They only played a combined 9 games for us; was that really worth a 2 point deduction?

[WiganWarrior]

The club had actually overspent by £80,000, which represented 52.3% as opposed to an allowable 50%. As any breach between 52% and 55% triggers a two-point deduction

so if we had done 51.9% we'd had just got a fine
by my reconning all we could have spent about £320 less and not got 2 point fine.