Jangling_Jack Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's an unreasonable restraint of trade on the face of it unless someone can find a proper reason why it is not. It's not a restraint of trade as there is no financial competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaby Reddin Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 This is the point, I suspect in the absence of a genuine logical answer to the actual question Gary you will win the day on this. The RFL make the rules and if you want to play with all the other clubs that have agreed to the rules, then you too must agree to them. These rules could be about the amount of money you can spend on your playing squad or how many players are on the park during a game. They could be about increasing the points for a try to 5 or limiting the number of substitutes allowed per game.......these rules have nothing to do with anyone other than those that signed up and agreed to them. If Leigh overtly go ahead and break the cap I sincerely hope they are demoted to Championship 1. No matter how unfair you think the rules are or how much I agree with you that they are unfair, the cap is agreed to by all member clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 So with the new fair play rules in football all teams are allowed to spend differing amounts on players. Is this also a restraint of trade. FFP is about clubs spending beyond their means. If Derek Beaumont wants to personally put the money in to compete with Hull.K.R. then his club are not doing the spending. They are not spending beyond their means. I dunno whether Hudgell writes off his subsidy, I suspect he does, so HKR would not be spending beyond their means in this scenario either. So it restrains Beaumont to be blocked from propping up an unviable club when Hudgell is allowed to do so? What's your take Bob?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a restraint of trade as there is no financial competition. You need to explain that Jack. Beaumont is trading on behalf of the Leigh business with the intent of rising above such as the HKR business. RFL rules restrain Beaumont from even trading/competition. It's not an argument about definitions, it's merely an argument about fairness within one competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 The RFL make the rules and if you want to play with all the other clubs that have agreed to the rules, then you too must agree to them. These rules could be about the amount of money you can spend on your playing squad or how many players are on the park during a game. Really? Then how about next year we have a rule where SL clubs play with 13 players and CC clubs play with 12?? Everyone would be outraged if that happened but the uneven salary cap is just the same thing. Go back to the "Rules". Yes Leigh agreed them, then Blake Solly suggested they be tweaked to iron out anomalies. Beaumont made a fair suggestion all clubs in the qualifiers should spend on players evenly if they can afford this.. Solly apparently did not even give reply to this logical suggestion. Leigh of course agreed and played to the 2015 rules. It really is up to Blake Solly to explain why CC club chairmen cannot put their own money in as a gift to make their clubs competitive via an even salary cap in the Qualifiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaby Reddin Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Leigh of course agreed and played to the 2015 rules.And as of 4 weeks ago they were fine with them........whatever could have happened to go from welcoming the new system and being happy with it for 27 weeks to the hissy fit we have now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweaty craiq Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 And as of 4 weeks ago they were fine with them........whatever could have happened to go from welcoming the new system and being happy with it for 27 weeks to the hissy fit we have now?I understand the question was put to the rfl a long time before that, at the time it was about missing the opportunity to sign players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKRBob Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 FFP is about clubs spending beyond their means. If Derek Beaumont wants to personally put the money in to compete with Hull.K.R. then his club are not doing the spending. They are not spending beyond their means. I dunno whether Hudgell writes off his subsidy, I suspect he does, so HKR would not be spending beyond their means in this scenario either. So it restrains Beaumont to be blocked from propping up an unviable club when Hudgell is allowed to do so? What's your take Bob?? Different Bob answering the question, but my take... If DB (or another Championship teams backers) has the funds... As long as they introduce the funds to the club rather than loan them the money, they should be allowed to do so. Whilst it will likely lead to one or two dominant teams in the Championship - is that really different to what we had this year. I think to a certain extent a number of SL clubs are propped up by backers. What I would say is that Rovers lose money on average crowds that are double Leigh's, whilst receiving funding that will be in excess of £1MN more than Leigh and also being in receipt of Sky TV matchday payments that Leigh will not have. If he has that kind of coin to throw at the game, without putting Leigh in jeopardy, I say to him "crack on!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Different Bob answering the question, but my take... If DB (or another Championship teams backers) has the funds... As long as they introduce the funds to the club rather than loan them the money, they should be allowed to do so. Whilst it will likely lead to one or two dominant teams in the Championship - is that really different to what we had this year. I think to a certain extent a number of SL clubs are propped up by backers. What I would say is that Rovers lose money on average crowds that are double Leigh's, whilst receiving funding that will be in excess of £1MN more than Leigh and also being in receipt of Sky TV matchday payments that Leigh will not have. If he has that kind of coin to throw at the game, without putting Leigh in jeopardy, I say to him "crack on!" Nice to see that someone can come up with a logical answer, if only the RFL could do the same instead of the cloak and dagger approach they seem to adopt for most moot points. I suspect they are waiting till after the MPG to air their views and will have to different answers depending on the result :- A Bulls win and stay as you are guys, A Championship club as succeeded under the present format. A Bulls defeat and the SC will definitely be increased for the Championship clubs. But being the RL the statement will probably be made a week or so before the start of next season. "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 A Bulls defeat and the SC will definitely be increased for the Championship clubs. Doesn't it depend on the RFL who famously put money into protecting the Bulls, wanting Bulls to maintain an advantage over Leigh if they don't go up?. Mr Green hasn't called for the cap to be raised Mr. Beaumont has. Surely the RFL will not allow Leigh to get an edge over the Bulls?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Doesn't it depend on the RFL who famously put money into protecting the Bulls, wanting Bulls to maintain an advantage over Leigh if they don't go up?. Mr Green hasn't called for the cap to be raised Mr. Beaumont has. Surely the RFL will not allow Leigh to get an edge over the Bulls?? I was expecting that answer from you Parky, I kind of skipped round the statement without actually stating it but I do suspect that it could be half mission accomplished, the other half will be the Bulls survival next season. Months ago I said that I would like to see a Championship club promoted and that going into tomorrow's game still stands, especially after Wakéy (doing nothing wrong under the rules) were allowed to strengthen their team but the CC could not. Yes, I want the Bulls to win for one reason, but I do think that a cap increase will as I stated be dependent on the Bulls success or not, so for completely personal reasons - for my club - I wouldn't mind a Wakéy victory. "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jangling_Jack Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 You need to explain that Jack. Beaumont is trading on behalf of the Leigh business with the intent of rising above such as the HKR business. RFL rules restrain Beaumont from even trading/competition. It's not an argument about definitions, it's merely an argument about fairness within one competition. Sport requires winners and losers. People watch for the uncertainty. Leigh or any other club can only exist with other, competitive clubs to play against. For this reason the EU does not consider sporting clubs, within the same sport, to be in financial competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Different Bob answering the question, but my take... If DB (or another Championship teams backers) has the funds... As long as they introduce the funds to the club rather than loan them the money, they should be allowed to do so. Whilst it will likely lead to one or two dominant teams in the Championship - is that really different to what we had this year. I think to a certain extent a number of SL clubs are propped up by backers. What I would say is that Rovers lose money on average crowds that are double Leigh's, whilst receiving funding that will be in excess of £1MN more than Leigh and also being in receipt of Sky TV matchday payments that Leigh will not have. If he has that kind of coin to throw at the game, without putting Leigh in jeopardy, I say to him "crack on!" What about only funding for 2 years but committing the club to 3 year contracts etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I was expecting that answer from you Parky, I kind of skipped round the statement without actually stating it but I do suspect that it could be half mission accomplished, the other half will be the Bulls survival next season. Months ago I said that I would like to see a Championship club promoted and that going into tomorrow's game still stands, especially after Wakéy (doing nothing wrong under the rules) were allowed to strengthen their team but the CC could not. Yes, I want the Bulls to win for one reason, but I do think that a cap increase will as I stated be dependent on the Bulls success or not, so for completely personal reasons - for my club - I wouldn't mind a Wakéy victory. But the Bulls and others did strengthen their team(s) just before the play off 8s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 But the Bulls and others did strengthen their team(s) just before the play off 8s Who, and by what degree which clubs acted this way within the rules that had to be abided by, the rules are far to lopsided to make sense or are fair, you are within the rules LeeF in your statement but if you are a fair minded person you know exactly what I am saying. The RFL should make it a level playing field for the qualifiers or have the balls and gumption and scrap the system till they can come up with something that does not give an advantage to any club(s). "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKRBob Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 What about only funding for 2 years but committing the club to 3 year contracts etc? I would assume escrow account for the full contract or Personal guarantee for the value of contracts above cap he wants to commit to would be most obvious. Although I would comment that DB has signed the club up to the contracts with neither of the above in place, which with the lesser funding for next year and trying to retrospectively sort the cap doesn't seem too responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I would assume escrow account for the full contract or Personal guarantee for the value of contracts above cap he wants to commit to would be most obvious. Although I would comment that DB has signed the club up to the contracts with neither of the above in place, which with the lesser funding for next year and trying to retrospectively sort the cap doesn't seem too responsible. Being responsible/sensible and DB don't seem to mesh very well in the same sentance, but if he has commited the signings to a personal debt and correctly structured and contracted the signings that will be OK, won't it? "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Genuine Leigh fans need not worry, as Beaumont has said that he is in it for the long term...unless he doesnt get his way, in which case he'll walk away (see millions of Sweaty's posts passim) . Hows that for blackmail....Oh, sorry , committmemnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Who, and by what degree which clubs acted this way within the rules that had to be abided by, the rules are far to lopsided to make sense or are fair, you are within the rules LeeF in your statement but if you are a fair minded person you know exactly what I am saying. The RFL should make it a level playing field for the qualifiers or have the balls and gumption and scrap the system till they can come up with something that does not give an advantage to any club(s). The rules did not change during the season and Leigh (& everyone else) knew the rules on day 1 At the end of the day Leigh failed to deliver during the 8s - losses to Halufax & the Bulls can't be excused by Salary Cap rules. Was that down to the payers or the coach or both or even DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Being responsible/sensible and DB don't seem to mesh very well in the same sentance, but if he has commited the signings to a personal debt and correctly structured and contracted the signings that will be OK, won't it? He hasn't personally committed to meeting the contracts somLeigh might have an issue if DB walks away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweaty craiq Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 He hasn't personally committed to meeting the contracts somLeigh might have an issue if DB walks away DB will honour any contracts he has personally agreed with any player, but he is here for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Sport requires winners and losers. People watch for the uncertainty. Leigh or any other club can only exist with other, competitive clubs to play against. For this reason the EU does not consider sporting clubs, within the same sport, to be in financial competition. Thanks for the reply Jack.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konkrete Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Doesn't it depend on the RFL who famously put money into protecting the Bulls, wanting Bulls to maintain an advantage over Leigh if they don't go up?. Mr Green hasn't called for the cap to be raised Mr. Beaumont has. Surely the RFL will not allow Leigh to get an edge over the Bulls?? You're going to have explain that one Parky. What money did the RFL put into the Bulls? Please don't tell me you mean advance Sky payments when our bank pulled the overdraft. And don't tell me you mean when the RFL BOUGHT the lease on Odsal that they are now earning off? The RFL have not protected the Bulls in the least. As far as I'm concerned they're complicit in our demise. Forever in our shadow, forever on your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 1. You're going to have explain that one Parky. 2. What money did the RFL put into the Bulls? Please don't tell me you mean advance Sky payments when our bank pulled the overdraft. And don't tell me you mean when the RFL BOUGHT the lease on Odsal that they are now earning off? 3. The RFL have not protected the Bulls in the least. As far as I'm concerned they're complicit in our demise. 1. Erm fair enough. 2. Yes that's what I meant, money didn't go in directly.....How far the RFL were complicit or could not stop the SL clubs pinching the SKY money I'm not sure - what's your take? 3. I just have a strong feeling because it's pretty much a majority thing that all that aside the RFL in the here and now would want Bulls to be in Superleague again don't you?? During the years they were licensing they sure as heck didn't want Leigh or Fax in. The point being and again corrections welcome Mr. Green said the club would not spend past it's income. If Leigh are allowed to then they could block Bulls return......But Bulls have that chance today and I'm sure Solly wants to see them win? Good luck.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 DB will honour any contracts he has personally agreed with any player, but he is here for the long haul. Your post #172 "Derek will only tip up for so long without SL status, as would any sugar daddy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.