Salford WILL have to pay over the odds to draw in top grade signings over the next two seasons. We would have to pay more to attract a player to Barton than other teams would to attract them to a Headingley , the DW or the HJ .
He can pay what he wants for a Tim Sheens or a similar ' name ' coach but they will want a war chest to buy a spine of quality to go with the better squad players & youth we already have .
In order to get that quality , He's tried the we won't be forced to pay over the odds tactic , but he knows in truth he will have to.
They've tried the' don't just join a club used to winning -thats easy - become a Salford Legend , kickstart a dynasty ' Churchillian speach ' .
Salford have never spent to the salary cap in their history in SL , the RL wants a successful competing Salford , the Owner wants a competetive team in double quick time and he's pushing the envelope to see what give there is?

In the end if Salford get a raise, then everyone gets a raise and so the players will stay where they are.

Salford may prise some players away from clubs that can't afford the cap now, but that's not really the player they are aiming for.

The other thing to keep in mind, the money for these players, is it a gift from the Good Doctor or a debt held against the club. If it's the first all well and good, if it's a loan from the Dr. then whose to say whether it will just leave Salford in the same position, with Debts that the crowds can't pay????

Sorry, but I just don't follow your reasoning.

Dr K has created a new company and injected cash, by what means, until the first accounts are published none of us know. Presumably as share capital and/or loan capital, I would rather doubt whether any money is in there as a "gift", how many businesses do you know funded by gifts?

His stated aim is to make the club self-sufficient by establishing other income streams, hence he wishes to have the club/company own the stadium and the land around it so that other developments by and for the club can happen - IMHO a very sound business strategy.

Now, should the strategy fail, should the crowds not materials and should the other developments not happen, then clearly, yes the Doc will be owed money (either shares or loans) that the company will not be able to pay and yes we would be back in the position we were in at Christmas - but that is just stating the bleeding obvious (and is no different for any other club or business that can't generate the required income) - or is your comment more subtle and I've missed the point completely?

I think the Doctor realises that the club isn't going to improve on the pitch or see an increase in attendances or income streams without substantial investment in the playing squad. Let's face it a struggling team and being 400K under the salary cap isn't going to get fans queing at the turnstiles.

The owner mentioned part of his plan was to buy the stadium and some surrounding land, he then wants to build something on it to provide the club with an outside income stream to supplement his long term plans.
I think buying the stadium from Peel/Council will be complex and protracted so I think his initial focus is to invest in the team and support this with his own finances. The stadium purchase and development is something I see happening further down the line. My view is any money the doctor invests will be loans with an intention of recouping his money at some point in the future.

I think I`m right in saying that in the NRL there is a Carry forward of unspent salary cap from previous year(s). In which case surely the Doctor has a very good point.

My guesstimate is Salford have spent approximately £6-7 million less on player wages over the 15 seasons we have competed in Superleague.

He said he won't be a sugar daddy so it'll be the Club racking up any debt which is as it should be.
If the whole project fails,and I don't think it will, then we are no worse off than we were before he stopped us going tits up,and he will have given it his best shot.
As to the salary cap,and as a lifelong supporter,I can't see any good reason why we should be made a special case.
If it increases for all clubs,then that's obviously a different matter

For the cap to be increased how many clubs would need to vote it through?

From what I garnered from Wilky's meeting at the church, we (they/he/the overdraft) spent £450,000 over the usual budget on player salaries for the 2011 season, probably taking us to the cap. Bloody frightening I know.



Even if it's a 'gift' in all but name it still has to be accounted for as BF says. Otherwise you're knocking on the gates of bung city.



If it's like other voting decisions, a small majority is required. 8 would do it. But I also imagine the RFL could veto it.

I don't agree with raising the salary cap en bloc. One of the reasons it was introduced was to save clubs from themselves — their recklessness with keeping up with the Joneses, or rather the Whelans and Caisleys. I think you're more likely to see dispensations. Let's say allowing clubs to have up to three players with limitless earning potential. However, those clubs would need to jump through hoops to prove how they would finance the deals. And they mustn't be reliant on factors that could jeopardise the future of the club.

I have misgivings about the cap as a concept. Previously it never really concerned us so I've never voiced them but:

1: Doesn't the very idea of saying to an employee that there is an upper limit on what you can earn go against all ideas of freedom of labour? If the employer is willing to pay whatever, then is it even lawful for a third party (the RFL) to say that the employee cannot receive it?

2: It's all very well saying that the cap is there to "save the clubs from themselves" but in what other businesses would this be considered acceptable? If all the supermarkets got together to agree amongst themselves exactly how much they would pay, then I'm sure the Office of Fair Trading would be crying foul pretty quickly.

3: Having an artificial construct like the salary cap in place just encourages dishonesty and "creative accounting" - surely an open, honest approach with disclosure of employee costs through the normal accounting procedures is preferable?

4: Having a cap just encourages other, richer sports to poach RL talent and discourages moves in the opposite direction.

Think the easy solution is as the Doc has said to allow each club a player (or more) off cap with their wages and then for say the club in question to have the funds too pay the players salary for each season of the contract into a fund held by the RFL to prevent the clubs over stretching.

You'd think there is a scope for clubs to source a big sponsor for these players thus not making an impact on there own finances.

Yes,that would be ideal,one player outside the cap.
Isn't that what happened to keep Tomkins from Union?
I think it works like that in MLS,which is how Beckham was financed.
All the other stuff about Caps being anti this ,that or the other,is irrelevant. We have a cap and we must adhere to the same rules as the others

Would that be using the well known Warrington clause?