Quote: vikings 4 ever "I always thought that the salary cap was linked to income. Now I'm sure the likes of Youngquest, Henderson and Branighan are not playing for peanuts, so to outsiders who can see Gatesheads posting crowds as low as 400 or so, it does look surprising to see these players at that club.
Now the Gateshead owner has already said the RFL do not fund Gateshead, but there are other ways around the cap. As far as I am aware, if a player is also employed by the club in some sort of community role, X amount of the players wages can be deducted off the cap. Quite a few people said that when David Peachey signed for Widnes, the 1st £30K of his wages could be used in this way. All you have to do is go to a few schools etc and you've been seen to make a contribution to developing the game.
Now I don't know if they were joking, but I also believe this was something Celtic Crusaders may have benefitted from. The RFL obviously pay people to be development officers in South Wales, but what made it look a bit dodgy was that the address for the South Wales RL development office was said to be Brewery Field, Brigend. What I would like to know is how much of Celtic's total wage bill did not count on the cap and instead was said to be 'development of the game'. Also I would be interested to know if any funding went to either Celtic or players of Celtic from the RFL for development of the game. Those 2 questions would also apply to Gateshead - basically do you receive extra funding from the RFL (in the name of development) and also does a lot of Gateshead players salary not go against the cap?
Not saying either Celtic or Gateshead have broken any rules, but just wondered how much extra funding or dispensation there is for development areas when it comes to employees wages and the salary cap. To an outsiders view, when you see a club that looks like it has very low income streams, it always raises eyebrows when you see them signing top class players. you automatically think 1) How can they afford them? and 2) How do they get around the 50% of income rule on the salary cap?'"
Some good questions here Viking 4 ever, and I can see why you would ask them, but there are a couple of things that need to be considered.
Income - I am pretty sure I am right in thinking that any funds donated by a finacial backer is classified as income for the salary cap calculation - so basically Gateshead's income is topped up by the financial contribution of Steve Garside.
Salary - the players you mentioned will be amongst the better paid players at the club, but I know that the some of the figures guessed at on various boards are way off the mark (Halifax will know what they have offered Branighan, so will have an idea of what he was on at Gateshead). In addition, the local and younger players are on very, very moderate deals - so the payroll overall will be nowhere near what some people think it is.
The 3 v 1 quota debate is an emotive one, people will only ever see one side of the argument and there really isn't any middle ground - from my experiencese of fans over the years, opinion is pretty much split and that is fair enough.
However, Steve Garside has commented on a few boards over the years, and so have I - and has said from the horses mouth that the additional quota is the only additional help Gateshead get - so in answer to your question, Gateshead don't get any additional funding from the RFL. I have also been told that when providing the RFL with their periodic returns with salary capm information - Gateshead are bound by the same interpretation as what counts against the cap and what doesn't as other clubs.
Fans of all clubs will always make their choice, as is their right, as to whether they believe this or not.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Bramley - ish rumours. Personally I hope Leigh get a reprieve, and the Championship increases to 12 teams next season - mainly because it makes for a more sensible league format.
