Leigh to ignore Salary Cap

[sweaty craiq]

You don't half talk some rubbish. So many pitfalls with this it's hard to know where to start.

 

Really, do you not have mates who would do this? I have.

A beer retails in a bar at a club who owns the ground at £3.50, after full cost of sales how much goes to pay the bills? So why base it on revenue when only a fraction is left after costs if anything at all?? 15 open doors a season means a huge operating cost per game, something that will cripple a club unless the stadium income is 52 weeks a year like Leeds, Saints and to a lesser degree Wire

[Derwent]

It's not based on absolute turnover it's based on salary cap relevant income which is different. HTH.

Anyway, I hear Salford may be in some hot water over the fallout from the Puletua tribunal.....

[The Parksider]

The salary cap differential in the Middle 8s will be lower next season anyway. The reintroduction of the 50% of turnover rule in SL means some of the weaker clubs won't be able to spend anywhere near the finite cap. For example, Salford's last accounts showed turnover of £2.2m which would mean a maximum cap spend of £1.1m for them. 

 

Really??

 

Owners contribution only counts as income for the cap if they write it off when it's given. If they put it on the balance sheet as directors loans then it can't be counted as income for cap purposes. 

 

Wow!!

 

It's not based on absolute turnover it's based on salary cap relevant income 

 

I never realised this Derwent, I made the (naive, gross, whatever) assumption that all SL clubs could spend the full cap as there was so much talk about SKY payments to SL now fully covering the cap.

 

Whilst you use your financial knowledge to set out Salford have a salary cap restriction due to low turnover when does this click in? I know they have released a lot of players and signed a lot of players so they may well be on a £1.1M spend now. However I can't get my head around the idea Koukash is happily spending, without a murmur, less that Wakey did this year!!

 

In terms of your one prediction for an underspend due to this rule at Salford isn't it the case that Wakefield would also be badly restricted on cap spend??  Widnes are the next low income club? Could this even touch Cas or HKR or even Fartown who have low gates? 

 

Thanks....

[Spidey]

Really??

Wow!!

I never realised this Derwent, I made the (naive, gross, whatever) assumption that all SL clubs could spend the full cap as there was so much talk about SKY payments to SL now fully covering the cap.

Whilst you use your financial knowledge to set out Salford have a salary cap restriction due to low turnover when does this click in? I know they have released a lot of players and signed a lot of players so they may well be on a £1.1M spend now. However I can't get my head around the idea Koukash is happily spending, without a murmur, less that Wakey did this year!!

In terms of your one prediction for an underspend due to this rule at Salford isn't it the case that Wakefield would also be badly restricted on cap spend?? Widnes are the next low income club? Could this even touch Cas or HKR or even Fartown who have low gates?

Thanks....

Widnes have quoted the 50% rule in a recent Q&A session with CEO James Rule. In it he detailed the need for the additional revenue to secure certain signings (with one can't remember which, along with the signing announced a new sponsorship partner)

They also detailed that they are spending 50% more on Salary Cap than when they secured the SL licence. I'm assuming then Widnes spent £1M and in 2016 will be spending £1.5M. No source for those numbers but seems logical

[Angelic Cynic]

Is this the relevant bit?

 

http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E4

 

If so,it has been in since last year when Salford had the,presumably,big earners.

 

If so,the great under-achievers from the borough of Wigan have even less to whinge about than first thought.

 

[Derwent]

Is this the relevant bit?

http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E4

If so,it has been in since last year when Salford had the,presumably,big earners.

If so,the great under-achievers from the borough of Wigan have even less to whinge about than first thought.

Yes but at the Puletua employment tribunal it emerged that Salford were using other avenues of paying players outside of the cap....

[chuffer]

Anyway, I hear Salford may be in some hot water over the fallout from the Puletua tribunal.....

 

I read this in the Sun (I didn't buy a copy, I was reading the copy at the barber's!) but have not been able to find it backed up online anywhere.....a portion of wages "officially" and another portion via paid employment as an admin assistant for one of his companies....allegedly....apparently 

[Gates1]

I read this in the Sun (I didn't buy a copy, I was reading the copy at the barber's!) but have not been able to find it backed up online anywhere.....a portion of wages "officially" and another portion via paid employment as an admin assistant for one of his companies....allegedly....apparently 

 

Its all starting to become a bit clearer.  Im guessing the administrative issues which caused Salford to miss bill payments early in the year occured during Gareth Hocks reign as an admin assistant.

[Derwent]

I read this in the Sun (I didn't buy a copy, I was reading the copy at the barber's!) but have not been able to find it backed up online anywhere.....a portion of wages "officially" and another portion via paid employment as an admin assistant for one of his companies....allegedly....apparently 

 

It was stated at the employment tribunal that Salford agreed to pay Puletua £130k a year but only had £80k space on their cap. So they agreed that the club would pay him £80k and one of Koukash's companies (EuroMaTech) would pay him the other £50k (outside of the RFL's knowledge of course).

 

It was this £50k that Puletua went to the tribunal over as Koukash reneged on paying it. He named both Salford and EuroMatech as the respondents in the case. So, while the "good doctor" was busy trumpeting the fact that the club had been cleared at the tribunal (because technically the "club" had paid his contract with them), what he neglected to say was that his EuroMaTech company was forced to reach an out of court settlement with Puletua to bring matters to a close in case any other embarrassing facts emerged.

 

I understand the RFL had a representative observing the tribunal and are investigating this matter and also whether any other players had similar arrangements. Dr Koukash says his club aren't under investigation, but it's difficult to see how the RFL could ignore it.

[chuffer]

all a bit of a mockery really.....but can the rfl touch him?

[The Parksider]

Widnes have quoted the 50% rule in a recent Q&A session with CEO James Rule. In it he detailed the need for the additional revenue to secure certain signings (with one can't remember which, along with the signing announced a new sponsorship partner)

They also detailed that they are spending 50% more on Salary Cap than when they secured the SL licence. I'm assuming then Widnes spent £1M and in 2016 will be spending £1.5M. No source for those numbers but seems logical

 

Very interesting...........

 

Thanks for that information and considered view 

[The Parksider]

Is this the relevant bit?

 

http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E4

 

If so,it has been in since last year when Salford had the,presumably,big earners.

 

If so,the great under-achievers from the borough of Wigan have even less to whinge about than first thought.

 

Is this bit of the rule his get out??

 

(a)  the club provides a personal guarantee or another appropriate form of security from a shareholder(s), director(s) or other business or entity associated or affiliated with the club, guaranteeing that that the club will meet the amount of the Salary Cap Aggregate Liability in excess of the Club Agreed Salary Limit.

 

It was stated at the employment tribunal that Salford agreed to pay Puletua £130k a year but only had £80k space on their cap. So they agreed that the club would pay him £80k and one of Koukash's companies (EuroMaTech) would pay him the other £50k (outside of the RFL's knowledge of course).

 

It was this £50k that Puletua went to the tribunal over as Koukash reneged on paying it. He named both Salford and EuroMatech as the respondents in the case. So, while the "good doctor" was busy trumpeting the fact that the club had been cleared at the tribunal (because technically the "club" had paid his contract with them), what he neglected to say was that his EuroMaTech company was forced to reach an out of court settlement with Puletua to bring matters to a close in case any other embarrassing facts emerged.

 

So Gentlemen is the good doctor clear because he may have provided said "personal guarantee" via another of his companies??

 

What is this your view on this "Personal guarantee" because if it's that easy then any rich person can break the cap?

 

Maybe the top earner was sneaked into the marquee category - that provides another £500K - how does that work in regards to the 50% rule.

 

Financially confused of Leeds..... 

[sweaty craiq]

Could be fun this

[Padge]

When is a player a pro or a semi-pro, 

[Philm]

Yes but at the Puletua employment tribunal it emerged that Salford were using other avenues of paying players outside of the cap....

It looks like E1.5.2.1.h is the relevant part ie "such other cases as the RSCM determines should be treated as payments to the Player" as is E1.5.2.2.e ie "such other cases as the RSCM determines should be treated as payments by the Club"

[The Parksider]

CLUB RELEVANT INCOME

 

Donations - Donations from other sources should be included as and when received. 

 

Owners/Directors Contributions – Where a club director or Owner (which may be corporate) has decided to write off, or capitalise, all or part of his loan with the club then a signed, personal letter to that effect must accompany the Club return.

 

Looks like clubs with rich owners can top up the income to then be able to pay full cap.

The rich owner can't get it back though.

 

Championship club rich owners can do this but are ultimately capped at £1M so again that must be Beaumont's beef. I reckon if he's keen to pump more in Leigh, then they are already being propped up and don't actually have a genius business plan to pay full cap on low crowds.

 

I note that Widnes are down as not paying full cap which gels entirely with IIRC Mr.

O'Connors assertion the club must pay it's own way, which I think is Mr. Green's stance at Bradford

[Dave T]

The salary cap differential in the Middle 8s will be lower next season anyway. The reintroduction of the 50% of turnover rule in SL means some of the weaker clubs won't be able to spend anywhere near the finite cap. For example, Salford's last accounts showed turnover of £2.2m which would mean a maximum cap spend of £1.1m for them. Given that the Championship cap is £1m then there won't be much difference between them in terms of player costs.

Ha sthe 50% rule been confirmed as coming back in?

[Dave T]

Is this bit of the rule his get out??

 

(a)  the club provides a personal guarantee or another appropriate form of security from a shareholder(s), director(s) or other business or entity associated or affiliated with the club, guaranteeing that that the club will meet the amount of the Salary Cap Aggregate Liability in excess of the Club Agreed Salary Limit.

 

 

So Gentlemen is the good doctor clear because he may have provided said "personal guarantee" via another of his companies??

 

What is this your view on this "Personal guarantee" because if it's that easy then any rich person can break the cap?

 

Maybe the top earner was sneaked into the marquee category - that provides another £500K - how does that work in regards to the 50% rule.

 

Financially confused of Leeds..... 

Yes, I must admit, that reads to me like it could have been fine, in that the 50k was to be paid by a seperate business as they were underwriting that part of the salary. None of this says that they spent over the £1.8m - they may have been over the 50%, but that could be agreed with the RFL.

[The Parksider]

Yes, I must admit, that reads to me like it could have been fine, in that the 50k was to be paid by a seperate business as they were underwriting that part of the salary. None of this says that they spent over the £1.8m - they may have been over the 50%, but that could be agreed with the RFL.

 

Post 316 - a "corporate owner" of a club can gift money to boost the cap.

 

Kooks was a corporate owner of the club and company that paid Puletua £50K.

 

Even if not agreed it's maybe not much of a crime, slap on hands I'd guess.

 

But as Derwent says Salford on income are at £1.1M cap - due to a £2.2M income. To spend full cap Koukash has to gift Salford £1.4M

 

Anyway after 319 posts nobody has said why Beaumont should not be able to do the same????

 

Anyone thought of a fair answer?

[Padge]

Post 316 - a "corporate owner" of a club can gift money to boost the cap.

 

Kooks was a corporate owner of the club and company that paid Puletua £50K.

 

Even if not agreed it's maybe not much of a crime, slap on hands I'd guess.

 

But as Derwent says Salford on income are at £1.1M cap - due to a £2.2M income. To spend full cap Koukash has to gift Salford £1.4M

 

Anyway after 319 posts nobody has said why Beaumont should not be able to do the same????

 

Anyone thought of a fair answer?

 

Leigh is on a different cap, what they are saying, or rather DB is saying, is that he will top it up beyond their cap limit, that is a totally different proposition.

 

Topping up to pay the full cap at your level is very different to topping up to go over the cap at your level.

[sweaty craiq]

Marquee signing?

[Padge]

Marquee signing?

 

Does it apply to the championship?

[The Parksider]

Marquee signing?

 

Dear me Craiq your reduced to teasing us, your Derek's right hand man, surely he's confided in you as to his thoughts why he's being blocked from investing in his club.

[sweaty craiq]

Does it apply to the championship?

 

No, but why?

[sweaty craiq]

Dear me Craiq your reduced to teasing us, your Derek's right hand man, surely he's confided in you as to his thoughts why he's being blocked from investing in his club.

 

Dear God, if only you knew  or indeed he.