If the cap isnt restricting the amount players are being paid then it is pointless and worthless and cant be a salary cap.

of course they can. A Project manager in the civil service can be a project manager in the Private Sector, An IT director in the civil service can be an IT director in the private sector. Why would you think they wouldnt or why would you think they only be classed as 'office workers'

it seemed fairly simple. Im surprised it went over your head. You are saying an RL player can seek his worth as an RL player outside the Salary Cap by either not being an RL player or moving to Australia. This would be the same as saying a secretary can seek their worth only by changing professions or moving to Australia.

To put it another way, I certainly wouldnt accept it, if at my next payment review the company i worked for decided to freeze or lower my pay on the basis that they had agreed with every other company who could offer me a similar position that they were going to keep wages down. And i certainly wouldnt accept a justification of, [iwell you could ignore the training and qualifications you spend years getting and go start out in a new role or move to another country[/i

It restricts the total amount a club can pay, it does not impose a set limit on an individuals salary. Every company has a set wage budget that it will not go over, that is not regarded as a cap on an individuals ability to earn a salary, yet because there is a well publicised limit in RL it is?



The majority of people in the civil service are not employed in such specialised roles.



It would be if the only people who employed secretaries in the world were based in England and Australia. You are attempting to compare a job which has a very limited worldwide presence to a job that is widespread with a much larger number of employers.

An RL player can only ply his trade as an RL player within England, France (part time or within the English game) or Australia. That is a pretty much it, I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of that.



If a company stated that you weren't going to get a pay rise because they had reached the limit of their pay budget, I'm sure they'd be quite happy for you to try and find alternative employment wherever you wished if you didn't like it. If you were employed in a role that only had positions in England or Australia, and you didn't accept an offer from another employer in the UK, then you'd have to 'go start out in a new role or move to another country', whether you accepted that justification or not.

No, every company has a budget which they set themselves. Not an arbitrary amount set by an outside body


well if they were office juniors then they could go elsewhere to be an office junior. There are very few jobs which are solely civil service with no equivalent private sector opportunity

Dont be silly. That clearly isnt the point being made and only a fool would think they could convince people it was.

It doesnt matter where else in the world a secretary can go work. It doesnt alter the fact their employment here is restricted.
No, i wouldnt. I would have legal right to redress as what they would be doing would be illegal. The company i work for, cannot operate as a cartel and restrict my right to seek my worth with another company. Which is what the SC does.

If a club reaches its budget and decideds not to spend anymore - fine. When that budget is then applied to another company, restricting them in offering the market worth to a prospective employee - It isnt.

However much you try to equate them, The SC and a clubs budget isnt the same. The SC is a restriction imposed on the clubs, and it isnt a gentlemans agreement-it is an enforceable rule under the terms in which the clubs are forced to operate.

In any other industry this cap would be ruled illegal immediately-there would barely be an argument. However there is provision for sport to be treated differently. The only question would be whether or not those provisions reach that far to protect the clubs

The point still stands that an individual can be paid whatever the club thinks they are worth within that budget, there is not a cap on an individuals pay bar that of the clubs budget for wages.




I'm going to end this one here, it has progressed to a point that has nothing to do with the discussion.



You brought it up. Why do so if it wasn't the point being made?



Again, that is an point you brought up.



They aren't. If your company offers you £100k and you don't want it, then there is nothign to stop another club offering anything above that within their pay structure. If a club wanted to pay a player £1.5 million and the rest of the squad £100k between them, they could. Nothing in the rules stop them doing that. Your worth is what the employers say you are worth, not what you think you are worth.



Again, nothing stops a club offering what it thinks that players market worth is.



The salary cap gives a club a wage budget to work with, but isn't a clubs wage budget?



Any other industry wouldn't need such strict regulations to join it. I couldn't decide to create a team and play professional RL tomorrow. Is that a restriction of trade? It is more a restriction than the cap is.

there is, its called the salary cap. By the very definition of its name, it is a Cap on Salaries. The fact this Cap treats players salaries as a whole rather than singularly is irrelevant. It still caps what players can earn, both individually and collectively

only because of your pedantry

I didnt, it was simply part of an example where you chose to focus on the pedantry rather than the point being made

yes, i did. I said it. I said that a secretary can go to another country but this doesnt affect the fact their employment would be restricted here. I did make that point
yes, and the Salary Cap stops this worth being found. There is nothing to stop a club (or all clubs) simply operating to a budget of £1.65m. The problem is the fact they operating together to do so. This stops them paying players what they think they are worth on the open market. The Salary Cap not only restricts a players earning potential individually but collectively.

And you seem to be missing the obvious point that if a club already has £1.5m in contracts, it then limits a players earnings to £150k. And if the club has spent £1.65m it restricts a players ability to ply his trade at all. Remember the problem here isnt a club not wishing to pay more than this. It is the clubs operating as a cartel to stop anyone paying more than this

except the Salary Cap. Which it doesnt surprise anyone but you is a cap on salary.

no, it is an arbitrary cap.
you can create a pro team and play professional RL tomorrow simply not in Super League. There is nothing to stop you setting up a new league and trading as that. Nothing to stop you inventing an RL team of your mates, paying them what you want and operating as an RL side. You might struggle to find someone to play against but no clubs are under an obligation to play you

Who is pretending that the clubs aren't in competition with each other?

simple question then: if the players feel that they could be earning more than they are now in a free market, why dont they all just walk away en masse and set up a new competition where they can be paid whatever they want.

I am guessing that they could find a couple of clubs to go with them, but the majority of clubs wouldnt.

So how has the salary cap helped here.

rlhttp://www.sporthull.co.uk/headlines/Hull-KR-Accounts-debts-163-3m/article-1638846-detail/article.htmlrl

rlhttp://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f

The salary cap was brought in to protect clubs from doing this which I agreed with, not equalise the competition.

Rogues, limiting them to £1.6m has helped, can you not see that. if they had been allowed to chase glory like Wigan in their 'glory' era and spent millions more they didn't have, they would now be in a far worse position.

If we scrap the cap like people suggest, how much would Saints, Hull KR, Wigan etc spend on salaries? These are established clubs who simply cant afford to spend more than the cap.

I'm not suggesting we scrap it, but the initial idea of the cap was to prevent things like this happening.

Clubs have to be made to realise they cannot overspend by such great amounts year on year. Are they really only spending £1.6 million on wages?

Leeds turned over £10.6 million and still made a loss. If they spent £1.6 million on players salaries, where was £9 million spent?
The salary cap in principle is a good idea, and something I have supported, but it's still needs some more thought to stop the HKR type of situation repeating itself.

Leeds probably spent the £9m on such things as non-playing staff salaries, ground maintenance (Built a new stand, is that capitalised as a fixed asset?), match day costs, policing, marketing and promotion, training facility rental/upkeep, medical costs, insurance, youth development, community schemes, transport, bribing match officials and management charges to the parent company.

Amongst other things, some of the the costs (not the same as 'spent') according to the accounts were:

Directors emols £290,248
Directors pensions £9,765
Other wages & Salaries (incl players) £4,486,967
Social Security Costs £404,071
Other staff pensions £59,317
Amortisation of transfer fees £33,823
Depreciation £502,667
Amortisation of ground improvement grants (32,561)
Dontation to LR foundation £50,000
P&M rentals £55,461
Paid to Leeds RUFC for unspecified services £200,000
Audit £14,000
auditors - tax services £5,650
auditors - other services £8,565
Legal fees £62,031
Interest paid on bank loans/overdrafts £4,452
Interest paid on loans from group £46,500
CT £458,959
DT £38,814

And, according to what they have said, some £500k on repairs (not capital) to the South Stand plus some refurb work to the Pavilion which also seems to have gone through the P&L.

But more than any other one thing it's wages and salaries - the club employs 100 people besides the players and matchday employees. Just because Wigan are a club without a ground, a soul or much else besides a matchday operation, doesn't mean the rest of the league is.

Now, wouldn't that one right there rankle a tad?

icon_smile.gif It's only money! I'm pleased we are doing all we can to help out our up and coming associate club in their quest to become the dominant rugby force in Yorkshire.