Sheffield Struggling

[Wellsy4HullFC]

So Wellsy I presume you are a strong advocate of scrapping the salary cap..

I don't see the salary cap as protection, more as a leveller to ensure the competition is competitive. It's efficient in lowering costs throughout the game and without it, it means they'd have to pay more for the same players.

The cap is still high enough for clubs to overspend (as has been seen during the licensing era and previously), so if it was designed for protection, it hasn't done a good job.

[Padge]

I don't see the salary cap as protection, more as a leveller to ensure the competition is competitive. It's efficient in lowering costs throughout the game and without it, it means they'd have to pay more for the same players.

The cap is still high enough for clubs to overspend (as has been seen during the licensing era and previously), so if it was designed for protection, it hasn't done a good job.

 

The cap was never brought in as a leveller, it was brought in as a safety mechanism, but the clubs decided to change the cap rules and that change meant they could overspend. The original cap was set at 50% of income. Once that was scrapped they may as well have scrapped it altogether.

 

Even if it was intended to be a leveller it has been a dismal failure.

[moorside roughyed]

At the end of the day.If there's more going out than coming in there's only going to be one outcome. Even i can work that one out.

[Wakefield Ram]

Removing the cap and making the prize money differential so great encourages some clubs to speculate. Fev's financial gamble paid off. Had they finished 5th how many more winding up orders would they have survived. The difference in prize money in the Championship only means that players not good enough for SL are getting paid more and the top two in the Championship are reliant on sugar daddies.

Only Batley out of the top 4 had a sustainable financial position. Sugar daddies never last that long, Ken Davy excepted. The Championship will become a more uneven comp next season. This is all to achieve a possible promotion / relegation of 1 club into SL.

[David Shepherd]

Removing the cap and making the prize money differential so great encourages some clubs to speculate. Fev's financial gamble paid off. Had they finished 5th how many more winding up orders would they have survived. The difference in prize money in the Championship only means that players not good enough for SL are getting paid more and the top two in the Championship are reliant on sugar daddies.

Only Batley out of the top 4 had a sustainable financial position. Sugar daddies never last that long, Ken Davy excepted. The Championship will become a more uneven comp next season.

 

A little unfair on Fev.  There's been a plan b in the works for quite a while.   Not sure they're ready to go public with the details as they have so far only consulted the "A" shareholders (Of which I and many other fans are one).

 

The combination of that revenue stream and the extra prize money should see us advance.  Plan B on it's own would have secured the future of the club without the extra funding.

[gazza77]

If we limited the ability of clubs to spend what one individual is prepared to put in, we'll be left with a handful of clubs that are viable at their current level. If we allow individuals to put money into clubs (I don't like to use the word investment, as that indicates they'd see a return), then we have to accept the risk that at some point that individual may walk away, leaving commitments the club is unable to cover. RL is not unique in that regard, however it does seem to find more individuals that just flounce off with scant regard for the consequences that other sports seem to, as for example both Sheffield & Fev have found out to their consequence recently. Other clubs may have been meticulous in their planning, but if a sponsor decides to not honour an agreement, such as in Workington's case, cash-flows are tight and problems are quick to pile up.

 

Until their is more money in the game to allow most clubs to get nearer to having something resembling a "rainy day fund", then we'll continue to see such problems. Yes, poor financial management plays a part in some cases, however this isn't the only reason, and I strongly suspect we'd see this issues no matter what structure is in place. If someone came to your club, started putting significant money in and promised to continue to do so in order to develop the club, would it be turned down? I doubt it, no matter who you support.

[Padge]

If we limited the ability of clubs to spend what one individual is prepared to put in, we'll be left with a handful of clubs that are viable at their current level. If we allow individuals to put money into clubs (I don't like to use the word investment, as that indicates they'd see a return), then we have to accept the risk that at some point that individual may walk away, leaving commitments the club is unable to cover. RL is not unique in that regard, however it does seem to find more individuals that just flounce off with scant regard for the consequences that other sports seem to, as for example both Sheffield & Fev have found out to their consequence recently. Other clubs may have been meticulous in their planning, but if a sponsor decides to not honour an agreement, such as in Workington's case, cash-flows are tight and problems are quick to pile up.

 

Until their is more money in the game to allow most clubs to get nearer to having something resembling a "rainy day fund", then we'll continue to see such problems. Yes, poor financial management plays a part in some cases, however this isn't the only reason, and I strongly suspect we'd see this issues no matter what structure is in place. If someone came to your club, started putting significant money in and promised to continue to do so in order to develop the club, would it be turned down? I doubt it, no matter who you support.

 

And there's the rub, its money that is the issue. We can play about with systems all we want, but, and its a big but, if they do not bring in more money then the changes are a waste of time and effort. Worse still is changing to a system that means that clubs are encouraged to over spend to achieve the holy grail.

 

For some reason, and this happened throughout the pre-SL P&R years clubs always over estimate the value of promotion thinking they will get their money back when promoted.  The whole idea of P&R for RL is totally flawed, why? because of the disparity of incomes. P&R for RL in this country to be workable has to be done under a large degree of control.

 

If Leigh get promoted it will be because basically Beaumont has been allowed to buy a place, it has not been by, what championship clubs have been crying out for, an even playing field. Beaumont buying Leigh a place at the top table is no different to licensing in many ways, the ones with the cash get allowed in, the rest can go and whistle.

[gazza77]

And there's the rub, its money that is the issue. We can play about with systems all we want, but, and its a big but, if they do not bring in more money then the changes are a waste of time and effort. Worse still is changing to a system that means that clubs are encouraged to over spend to achieve the holy grail.

For some reason, and this happened throughout the pre-SL P&R years clubs always over estimate the value of promotion thinking they will get their money back when promoted. The whole idea of P&R for RL is totally flawed, why? because of the disparity of incomes. P&R for RL in this country to be workable has to be done under a large degree of control.

If Leigh get promoted it will be because basically Beaumont has been allowed to buy a place, it has not been by, what championship clubs have been crying out for, an even playing field. Beaumont buying Leigh a place at the top table is no different to licensing in many ways, the ones with the cash get allowed in, the rest can go and whistle.

Exactly. The current structure is not the issue, nor was the last, nor the one before, etc. Equally, changing how things work every 5 minutes won't make any difference. We are where we are with the structure, so let's stick with it rather than more changes and work on solutions to bring more money into the game.

[DemonUK]

And there's the rub, its money that is the issue. We can play about with systems all we want, but, and its a big but, if they do not bring in more money then the changes are a waste of time and effort. Worse still is changing to a system that means that clubs are encouraged to over spend to achieve the holy grail.

 

For some reason, and this happened throughout the pre-SL P&R years clubs always over estimate the value of promotion thinking they will get their money back when promoted.  The whole idea of P&R for RL is totally flawed, why? because of the disparity of incomes. P&R for RL in this country to be workable has to be done under a large degree of control.

 

If Leigh get promoted it will be because basically Beaumont has been allowed to buy a place, it has not been by, what championship clubs have been crying out for, an even playing field. Beaumont buying Leigh a place at the top table is no different to licensing in many ways, the ones with the cash get allowed in, the rest can go and whistle.

 

The rest can go whistle....OR........they can improve the running of their business, market the club better, attract money in the forms of sponsorship and backers etc.  I don't recall any encouragement from the RFL to overspend.  London don't get too many more watching than Sheffield, but they have a backer as do Leigh, why is that seen by some to be a crime? Full time clubs in 2014 = 14, 2015 = 15(?), 2016 = 16 (OK 2 appear to have fecked it up this year, but that is nothing to do with the RFL). If a club/business is not ready for the next step then that has to be accepted and if the custodians are ambitious and capable then they can put plans in place to get to a point where the next step is affordable.

[Padge]

The rest can go whistle....OR........they can improve the running of their business, market the club better, attract money in the forms of sponsorship and backers etc.  I don't recall any encouragement from the RFL to overspend.  London don't get too many more watching than Sheffield, but they have a backer as do Leigh, why is that seen by some to be a crime? Full time clubs in 2014 = 14, 2015 = 15(?), 2016 = 16 (OK 2 appear to have fecked it up this year, but that is nothing to do with the RFL). If a club/business is not ready for the next step then that has to be accepted and if the custodians are ambitious and capable then they can put plans in place to get to a point where the next step is affordable.

 

Hang on, the championship clubs have been wailing about an uneven playing field for years, the current system makes it even more uneven. The hypocrisy is unbelievable that is coming from the supporters of clubs that have complained about it for years.

 

The salary cap regulations where changed to allow Beaumont to buy a place in SL, I have no problem with that as such, I have a problem of the hypocrisy of those that said it was unfair that other teams in the past had effectively bought a place by putting cash on the table.

[Angelic Cynic]

Lots of views from supporters of different clubs on here:

 

Hull FC - Overpaid their players and in the 80's had to transfer Crooks and Schofield to Leeds.Crooks did NOT want to go.

 

In the late 90's they didn't have any crowds - the RFL gave them Gateshead Thunder;lock,stock and barrel.

 

They struck lucky with the stadium.

 

Leigh

 

            The council built them a stadium

 

Featherstone

 

                        Face a winding-up order but stll allowed to play dual reg players and sign players on loan from Super League clubs allowing them to reach Top 4 and make a financial killing.

 

Bradford

 

               Face a winding-up order but allowed to bring in coach from Australia and sign players from the NRL

 

The level playing field doesn't exist.Never has.Never will.Under Licensing the stadia was in the equation.Getting a new stadia hasn't helped Salford and hasn't hindered Castleford or Wakefield.( Not yet in the case of Wakefield )

 

 

It does seem the Sheffield situation could have been worse - but has been averted.

 

Their future,if they have one,will depend on the investor.Will the RFL allow only one investor? 

 

The Brian Barwick book of contacts is still to be opened.

 

Will Dr Koukash be able to assist Sheffield?  Does he have any friend in any racing stables in the Yorkshire area?

 

It seems Sheffield have been able to manage to pay HMRC yet we have a thread on them but not the clubs who have not paid HMRC.

 

The York situation is just a problem with the owner.I do not think it is a financial problem. 

 

  I remember a soccer manager being asked if he treated the players all the same.'No',he replied,'because they are all different'.

 

  Sheffield council won't construct a stadium for them and an investor has left the club - he had been there for a few years;so different to the guy at Fev.

[Konkrete]

Lots of views from supporters of different clubs on here:

 

Hull FC - Overpaid their players and in the 80's had to transfer Crooks and Schofield to Leeds.Crooks did NOT want to go.

 

In the late 90's they didn't have any crowds - the RFL gave them Gateshead Thunder;lock,stock and barrel.

 

They struck lucky with the stadium.

 

Leigh

 

            The council built them a stadium

 

Featherstone

 

                        Face a winding-up order but stll allowed to play dual reg players and sign players on loan from Super League clubs allowing them to reach Top 4 and make a financial killing.

 

Bradford

 

               Face a winding-up order but allowed to bring in coach from Australia and sign players from the NRL

 

The level playing field doesn't exist.Never has.Never will.Under Licensing the stadia was in the equation.Getting a new stadia hasn't helped Salford and hasn't hindered Castleford or Wakefield.( Not yet in the case of Wakefield )

 

 

It does seem the Sheffield situation could have been worse - but has been averted.

 

Their future,if they have one,will depend on the investor.Will the RFL allow only one investor? 

 

The Brian Barwick book of contacts is still to be opened.

 

Will Dr Koukash be able to assist Sheffield?  Does he have any friend in any racing stables in the Yorkshire area?

 

It seems Sheffield have been able to manage to pay HMRC yet we have a thread on them but not the clubs who have not paid HMRC.

 

The York situation is just a problem with the owner.I do not think it is a financial problem. 

 

  I remember a soccer manager being asked if he treated the players all the same.'No',he replied,'because they are all different'.

 

  Sheffield council won't construct a stadium for them and an investor has left the club - he had been there for a few years;so different to the guy at Fev.

Apart from one poster on here, who stated his hateful position very clearly re Sheffield ('die, die now' I think it went), we're all hoping Sheffield pull through and survive. However, randomly hitting out at other clubs isn't going to win you any friends.

Your post reads like a drunken rant of bizzare unconnected truths, half truths and delusions.

[Blind side johnny]

Your post reads like a drunken rant of bizzare unconnected truths, half truths and delusions.

 

 

Well this is a RL forum.

[Derwent]

Apart from one poster on here, who stated his hateful position very clearly re Sheffield ('die, die now' I think it went), we're all hoping Sheffield pull through and survive. However, randomly hitting out at other clubs isn't going to win you any friends.

Your post reads like a drunken rant of bizzare unconnected truths, half truths and delusions.

He has got a point about Fev and Bradford though. There is supposed to be a rule that any club who is overdue with their payments to HMRC should be placed in "special measures" including an embargo on signing and registering new players but it seems to have been ignored in the case of these 2 clubs.

There are other double standards too - Workington can't pay their players their full amount and the RFL say sorry we can't help so they get a 30% pay cut, Bradford can't pay their players and the RFL step in and pay them and guarantee wages until the end of the season.

You can call it a rant, half truth or delusion if you like but those are facts.

[Konkrete]

He has got a point about Fev and Bradford though. There is supposed to be a rule that any club who is overdue with their payments to HMRC should be placed in "special measures" including an embargo on signing and registering new players but it seems to have been ignored in the case of these 2 clubs.

There are other double standards too - Workington can't pay their players their full amount and the RFL say sorry we can't help so they get a 30% pay cut, Bradford can't pay their players and the RFL step in and pay them and guarantee wages until the end of the season.

You can call it a rant, half truth or delusion if you like but those are facts.

 

He has no point.  How are they the facts Derwent?  AC claims that the Bulls have been allowed to sign players and a coach from the NRL when a winding up petition was in place.

 

Dec 9th     Date of old winding up order removed by HMRC after being satisfied (London Gazette)

 

May 5th     Rohan Smith signs for the Bulls (T&A)

June 3rd    Kieran Moss signs for the Bulls (T&A)

June 30th  Dane Chisholm signs for the Bulls (T&A)

 

July 28th        Date of new winding up order lodged by HMRC (London Gazette)  

 

Having laid out the dates, all of which are freely available on the interweb and which no doubt were checked by AC when he made the accusation against the club and the RFL, are you still happy to stand by his 'facts'?

 

Do I call it a rant, half truth or delusion?  Yes, I most certainly do.

 

You've got a bit of a special status on this forum Derwent.  Folk know you're an accountant, a man of facts and figures and accuracy, so will probably assume that when you post you do so from a solid position.

[Derwent]

He has no point.  How are they the facts Derwent?  AC claims that the Bulls have been allowed to sign players and a coach from the NRL when a winding up petition was in place.

 

Dec 9th     Date of old winding up order removed by HMRC after being satisfied (London Gazette)

 

May 5th     Rohan Smith signs for the Bulls (T&A)

June 3rd    Kieran Moss signs for the Bulls (T&A)

June 30th  Dane Chisholm signs for the Bulls (T&A)

 

July 28th        Date of new winding up order lodged by HMRC (London Gazette)  

 

Having laid out the dates, all of which are freely available on the interweb and which no doubt were checked by AC when he made the accusation against the club and the RFL, are you still happy to stand by his 'facts'?

 

Do I call it a rant, half truth or delusion?  Yes, I most certainly do.

 

You've got a bit of a special status on this forum Derwent.  Folk know you're an accountant, a man of facts and figures and accuracy, so will probably assume that when you post you do so from a solid position.

 

Yes I do stand by the facts. You are making the mistake of using the WUP issue dates rather than when the payments were due.

 

HMRC, in my experience, usually take around 3 months to issue a WUP after non-payment of VAT (though it can be longer or shorter, there's no set rule). Working back from the date they issued the WUP it would mean the payment was due at the end of April. So any signings made after end of April were made while in arrears with payments to HMRC, which is a breach of the rules as they stand. The WUP date isn't important in this context, the due date for payment is. You are in arrears once the due payment date has passed, simple as that.

[Bull4Life]

Yes I do stand by the facts. You are making the mistake of using the WUP issue dates rather than when the payments were due.

 

HMRC, in my experience, usually take around 3 months to issue a WUP after non-payment of VAT (though it can be longer or shorter, there's no set rule). Working back from the date they issued the WUP it would mean the payment was due at the end of April. So any signings made after end of April were made while in arrears with payments to HMRC, which is a breach of the rules as they stand. The WUP date isn't important in this context, the due date for payment is. You are in arrears once the due payment date has passed, simple as that.

 

But even IF that is the case, surely the RFL are not aware of these arrears until HMRC issue the WUP? The embargo on signing players can't be put in place untill HMRC has publicised the fact - ie when the WUP is issued.

[Konkrete]

Yes I do stand by the facts. You are making the mistake of using the WUP issue dates rather than when the payments were due.

 

HMRC, in my experience, usually take around 3 months to issue a WUP after non-payment of VAT (though it can be longer or shorter, there's no set rule). Working back from the date they issued the WUP it would mean the payment was due at the end of April. So any signings made after end of April were made while in arrears with payments to HMRC, which is a breach of the rules as they stand. The WUP date isn't important in this context, the due date for payment is. You are in arrears once the due payment date has passed, simple as that.

 

Which rule has been broken by the RFL in the Bulls case?  Be precise please.  

 

Transfer embargos are, so far as I know - but happy to be corrected, not a fixed feature of so called 'special measures' but one potential option among a range of options with all dependent on the circumstances.

[eclecticsheep]

even if Leigh attain super league, there is no assurance that they will not be whipping boys and back down in a season or bust trying to survive having shaken out a good deal of the promotion winning squad...The gulf is bigger than one thinks week on week...

I hope the eagles survive Aston has done a mercurial job year on year...but what all the Championship clubs need is more than currently available...and that is a bigger slice of central funding, and its about time the rl facilities trust actually helped some of these perennial nomads to establish homes...And that is where I would desire more central funding was invested, rather than in to "elite" players bank accounts.

[Derwent]

But even IF that is the case, surely the RFL are not aware of these arrears until HMRC issue the WUP? The embargo on signing players can't be put in place untill HMRC has publicised the fact - ie when the WUP is issued.

No, each club is required to periodically submit a declaration to the RFL that they are up to date or in arrears with their obligations to HMRC. Either Bradford were submitting false declarations or the RFL ignored true ones.

[Derwent]

Which rule has been broken by the RFL in the Bulls case?  Be precise please.  

 

Transfer embargos are, so far as I know - but happy to be corrected, not a fixed feature of so called 'special measures' but one potential option among a range of options with all dependent on the circumstances.

You are correct they are not a fixed feature of special measures, but it comes down to consistency. In the last couple of years both Whitehaven and Batley have been subjected to player registration embargoes due to arrears to HMRC. I'm not blaming Bradford here, just saying that there should be consistency otherwise it leaves things wide open to allegations of bias.

[Colin James]

even if Leigh attain super league, there is no assurance that they will not be whipping boys and back down in a season or bust trying to survive having shaken out a good deal of the promotion winning squad...The gulf is bigger than one thinks week on week...

.

I suppose you could argue one of the strengths of this system is that if Leigh go up they don't immediately have to be SL standard. They only have to be better than the top four Championship clubs next season. Straight P+R doesn't offer such a protection. Licensing goes too far.

Yes it means they could lose every game in the regular season and stay up which isn't good but it does mean they don't necessarily have to spend way beyond their means just to avoid an immediate return to the Championship.

[Konkrete]

You are correct they are not a fixed feature of special measures, but it comes down to consistency. In the last couple of years both Whitehaven and Batley have been subjected to player registration embargoes due to arrears to HMRC. I'm not blaming Bradford here, just saying that there should be consistency otherwise it leaves things wide open to allegations of bias.

 

There are provisions within the rules to account for different scenarios, one of which is the existence of a guarantor.  It's assumed by some that the rules have not been consistently applied, but that may not be the case.  If, for instance, Batley and Whitehaven didn't have a satisfactory guarantor for the HMRC payments then the embargo could well be appropriate for those clubs.

 

AC has accused the RFL of breaking the rules regarding transfer embargos in relation to non payment of dues to the HMRC, and at the moment you are standing by that accusation.  As it stands so far, no-one has been able to point out what rule has been broken and, when considering the HMRC WUP in the London Gazette, we are not party to the actual correct due date - there are just assumptions are being made.  Your point about 'Either Bradford were submitting false declarations or the RFL ignored true ones' is not an absolute.  It could well be that the timings of accounts submitted explain.  We simply don't know.

[Padge]

He has got a point about Fev and Bradford though. There is supposed to be a rule that any club who is overdue with their payments to HMRC should be placed in "special measures" including an embargo on signing and registering new players but it seems to have been ignored in the case of these 2 clubs.

There are other double standards too - Workington can't pay their players their full amount and the RFL say sorry we can't help so they get a 30% pay cut, Bradford can't pay their players and the RFL step in and pay them and guarantee wages until the end of the season.

You can call it a rant, half truth or delusion if you like but those are facts.

 

You have failed to take into account that clubs are only considered to be in arrears if the payment is over 28 days late.

 

When a club is put into Special Measures an embargo will only possibly apply if the club fails to comply with the arrangements agreed under the Special Measures.

 

Special measures do not include the option to place an embargo on the club, failure to comply with special measures does. Special measures can include the club having to have any new players contracts approved by the RFL, the embargo only applies to registering players if it is put in place.

[Blind side johnny]

Which rule has been broken by the RFL in the Bulls case?  Be precise please.  

 

Transfer embargos are, so far as I know - but happy to be corrected, not a fixed feature of so called 'special measures' but one potential option among a range of options with all dependent on the circumstances.

Keep digging - the hole is sure to get shallower soon.