Re: salary cap info

roo67 · Post by **roo67** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:16 pm

is any one else amazed at the rfl wording of our cap breach-` against the spirit of the salary cap`. does this mean we have bneen docked 4 points on a matter of principle rather than a rule break. if so the rfl could find themselves in trouble if this goes to the high court

standishwarrior · Post by **standishwarrior** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:36 pm

roo67 posted:
is any one else amazed at the rfl wording of our cap breach-` against the spirit of the salary cap`. does this mean we have bneen docked 4 points on a matter of principle rather than a rule break. if so the rfl could find themselves in trouble if this goes to the high court

i don think weve been docked points on a matter of principle.. it says spirit of the cap and its objectives, and that to me means the objectives of the cap are to stop all clubs spending more than 1.6 million, that should take precedence over a technical interpritation which deferred payments could be classed as ! if thats the case then we have broke the rules!

Fraggle · Post by **Fraggle** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:38 pm

standishwarrior posted:
roo67 posted:
is any one else amazed at the rfl wording of our cap breach-` against the spirit of the salary cap`. does this mean we have bneen docked 4 points on a matter of principle rather than a rule break. if so the rfl could find themselves in trouble if this goes to the high court
i don think weve been docked points on a matter of principle.. it says spirit of the cap and its objectives, and that to me means the objectives of the cap are to stop all clubs spending more than 1.6 million, that should take precedence over a technical interpritation which deferred payments could be classed as ! if thats the case then we have broke the rules!

Which doesn't mean anything! We have not spent over Â£1.6million. If we had paid the original salaries we would have done, but we have not spent over the limit in 2006. That objective has been met. No technical issue involved.

weststand-rich · Post by **weststand-rich** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:45 am

This challenge from Wigan is going to have huge repurcussions for lots of ways clubs adminster their accounts. This ruling essentially means that whatever contract a player has is set in stone for the duration of their time at club. With this presidence it would take a brave club to alter a players contract at any point in a financial year upwards or (in our case) downwards regardless of performance, indiscretion or family circumstance.

So Wigan have cancelled and renegotiated a variety of contracts to meet their salary bill, but may as well have not bothered. Does the ruling mean that the money that wasn't paid to players but was counted now becomes 'free' becuase it's already been penalised for??? In the salary cap rules it says nothing about how a player salary is to be divided within a contractual period. In theory you could pay a player 10 pence one year, 20 pence the second year and Â£400K in the final year of a contract. Okay it's an extreme example but in what way would that be against the spirit of the salary cap?? The division of salary is nothing to do with anybody but the club and the player.

I'm sure our previous seasons injuries will be blamed for our cap maneoureves, but it's becoming a jaded excuse. Look at Warrington this season. They've had at least a comparable injury list to ours last season, but have rode it out through an appalling spell and held their nerve. Okay they're a team of underacheivers but haven't had to resort to panic buying all and sundry in the national league.

The RFL choose to run the superleague in a political and arbitary way and that's just the way it is. Maybe we should go bankrupt like the Broncos did (not at all cynically) and get our slate wiped clean?? :sly: