Quote: wire-quin "Do you have any more myths to serve up? There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards'" Quote: wire-quin " 5.12 London Allowance In recognition of the higher living costs for London Broncos players due to their location a 10% London cost of living weighting allowance is applied to the Club’s maximum Aggregate Liability is available in addition to the Club Trained dispensation, subject to the combined value of both allowances being capped at the 10% weighting allowance. '" media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... 202016.pdf

Quote: wire-quin "Do you have any more myths to serve up? There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards'" Quote: wire-quin " 5.12 London Allowance In recognition of the higher living costs for London Broncos players due to their location a 10% London cost of living weighting allowance is applied to the Club’s maximum Aggregate Liability is available in addition to the Club Trained dispensation, subject to the combined value of both allowances being capped at the 10% weighting allowance. '" media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... 202016.pdf

Its up to the RFL and its members if a club is allowed membership of the RFL, not a judge. The only punishment for not agreeing to abide by the regulations is expulsion from the organisation. There is no problem with fining a club within the organisation as long as there are laid down disciplinary regulations (which there are).

Now which of your orifices are you going to argue with now, as I know you have to have the last word. However that is usually because people can't be bothered with you.

No. UK law supersedes the RFL in every aspect.

You cannot be bound by an unlawful term. Whether you agree to it or not it is unenforceable.

But it isn't fact that the salary cap would break the law or is unenforceable in law.

A company's (or most public sector body's) pay structure could similarly be described as a salary cap.

hence it being described as possibly unenforceable.

A companies pay structure is in no way comparable to the Salary Cap. There are many clear and obvious differences. Not least that a third party does not punish a company for breaking its pay structure.

A parent company could punish its subsidiary. As could a company punish a department within that company if it broke pay structures.

A company isn't a third party to its constituent parts.

If the cap is against the Law, as smokey claims, how come no one has faced criminal charges yet? In any sport?

Regards

King James

because it wouldnt be a criminal case.

The question of legality of salary caps is a complex one, the central issues are very well defined, as are the applicable legal principles. If it ever was challenged in court, the result is no foregone conclusion.

The RFU after their recently salary cap investigations, swept several apparent breaches, ruining into millions, under the carpet. The general consensus seemed to be, that they took legal advice and where advised that a case against a wealthy team willing to fight it would be very long & expensive with only a 50\50 chance of winning. They decided not to try.

I am sure the exact details etc are not the same, but it does highlight the problems.

Yep. Though of course that was potentially against several clubs who'd breached the cap. If there's only 1 then the governing body may be willing to take that case on.

I've said before the bigger question regarding the SC would be less it's legality and more how much time and money the RFL is prepared to spend defending it when fundamentally it doesn't actually affect the RFL as an organisation.

3 points according to Marwan Koucash - For speeding lol