Re: Salary Cap : Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:09 pm  

philipk wrote:

i dont work under a salary cap and im sure that those contributors on here who are in full or even part time employment arent restricted either- so why should RL players be

Yes you do. Your employer will have an amount available to spend on salaries, all companies have restricted money available for salaries. What about companies that have salary bands? The Civil Service for example? Each grade can only earn up to a set amount. If you hit the maximum, you don't get a pay rise unless that maximum is raised, to get a further increase you have to be promoted. You have to change jobs to get a pay increase. Is that restraint of trade?

There is no restriction of trade, nothing is stopping that player signing a contract for the money the club wants to pay. The fact that they either can't afford to pay them more, or simply don't think they are worth it is not a restriction on trade. The fact that the player chooses not to accept a contract because he thinks he is worth more does not constitute a restriction on trade.

When Chris Moyles was offered a reduced salary for his new contract because the BBC were reducing their salary budget, if he had rejected it, would that have been a restraint on trade? No.

Re: Salary Cap : Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:04 am  

My opinions:

1) The SC has certainly 'spread' the best players around, too a degree.
2) It has stopped some clubs spending more than they could afford and may have stopped worse things happening...
3) To increase it, the game needs a significant increase in revenue.

Re: Salary Cap : Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:14 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Raising the cap would be good, but the sport doesn't have the finances to do it.

Succintly summed up by the sad bloke in the corner. Argue all you want about paying players more, restirictions on trade, blah blah blah, but there isn't a club in the country who can pay more than the salary cap allows, whilst still staying in business. If union can pay more for the top players, then that is life, get on with it. Union is a vastly richer sport than league, to try to compete with their wages is folly, and will lead to major problems in the game.

Re: Salary Cap : Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:08 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I don't think it was ever intended to actually improve the rugby, just level out the playing field so we didn't have another 10 years of dominance from one club.

only another 7 years to go then

Re: Salary Cap : Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:38 pm  

There are restrictions of what a player can be paid in RL.
A player can't be paid £1.7m. Theory yes, he still can't be though so it's a restriction.
Clubs are spending monies on other things now they are not investing it in players. As mentioned Leeds turnover was £10m with a cap of £1.65.
Of course they can afford to spend more than £1.65m on 25 players.

Re: Salary Cap : Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:50 am  

Father Ted wrote:

There are restrictions of what a player can be paid in RL.
A player can't be paid £1.7m. Theory yes, he still can't be though so it's a restriction.
Clubs are spending monies on other things now they are not investing it in players. As mentioned Leeds turnover was £10m with a cap of £1.65.
Of course they can afford to spend more than £1.65m on 25 players.

how can they afford it if they only made a slight profit by selling assets? hardly longterm thinking. If a club can make a profit through "normal" business then they may have a case for raising the cap, but any that do barely break even.

Re: Salary Cap : Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:37 pm  

Father Ted wrote:

There are restrictions of what a player can be paid in RL.
A player can't be paid £1.7m. Theory yes, he still can't be though so it's a restriction.
Clubs are spending monies on other things now they are not investing it in players. As mentioned Leeds turnover was £10m with a cap of £1.65.
Of course they can afford to spend more than £1.65m on 25 players.

What was their profit though?

If their turnover is £10 million but their costs are £10 million, then no they can't.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:31 am  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

What was their profit though?

If their turnover is £10 million but their costs are £10 million, then no they can't.

My wage bill is approx half of my monthly costs, and I don't run a labour intensive business, I sell goods rather than services. However, a rugby league club needs a lot more staff than just the players - it needs to staff the whole infrastructure, they also will have a high cost of maintaining their premises and I would assume matchday itself is rather expensive in terms of staffing/organising.

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:44 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

how can they afford it if they only made a slight profit by selling assets?

Where did you hear this? In terms of a balance sheet, that statement is a bit of an oxymoron. Fixed assets or current assets?

Re: Salary Cap : Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:04 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Where did you hear this? In terms of a balance sheet, that statement is a bit of an oxymoron. Fixed assets or current assets?

it was on here or the VT when all the clubs released their accounts, leeds sold a peice of land to put them in profit