Quote The Avenger="The Avenger"Well as I suspect you already know, that’s not why the game switched to fixed term contracts.
The switch happened because of the Bosman ruling and subsequently Kelvin Skerrets test case involving his move from Hunslet to Bradford.
As for players being able to pay their bills, they’re no different to anyone else in the modern world. They have a skill set to offer and they secure employment due to that. No different to a self employed tradesman building houses for a large house builder like Barrett’s. A players career is shorter but they can earn much more if they’re good enough. They can learn a second trade for life after sport but some also have an advantage as they can also set up a business and/or buy properties with their higher disposal income.
I’m not advocating’Zero-Hour contracts as they’re by and large a bloody evil way of treating a work force.'"
You may be right but I don't recall it that way.
The Bosman ruling is about transfer fees.
The rule being that you can't charge a transfer fee for a player who's contract has ended.
What I'm saying is a player on a win bonus scheme would find it hard to get a mortgage. Just as someone who is self employed does. Your accountant has to make a case and it's hard if your income fluctuates. Someone salaried can just say the have a permanent job.
So the players union pushed for this change.
No one would take a contract at Wakefield based on win bonuses.
Paid a basic and then have add ons for winning I guess is like a sales commission. That might work but would cist us more.
