A Genuine Question

[Harry Stottle]

If a player has no desire to leave and is released by a club in which he still has a portion of his contract owing to him that (A) the club must settle or (B) club and player must at least come to a settlement agreement, do those monies payed by the club be deemed as "spent" and therefore will they count on the SC?

[AlanE]

Morning Harry. According to the Salary Cap Regulations, section 6.1.2 any contract 'termination settlements' are included in the SC.

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, AlanE said:

Morning Harry. According to the Salary Cap Regulations, section 6.1.2 any contract 'termination settlements' are included in the SC.

Thanks Alan, so I assume that must be to the termination of the contract, i.e. if said player is released with say 18 months remaining and the club were operating at the full cap level, then the monies apportioned would in reality be for the remainder of 'this' season and for the whole of the following season, but if there is room on the cap to be settled in full then that could be finalised?

So any club operating at near or full cap would not be in a position to enter new contracts with player's until termination settlements are completed?

[Harry Stottle]

An afterthought 

41 minutes ago, AlanE said:

Morning Harry. According to the Salary Cap Regulations, section 6.1.2 any contract 'termination settlements' are included in the SC.

I think that all clubs should be required to submit "live" cap spending commitments to the RFL which can be published for all and sundry to see, it can't be hard to do every club /buisness will know what their weekly wage bill is, doing that will stop any allegations of wrong doing being said.

[Kris]

A possible get out

a player is asked to leave with 18 months left on a contract 

ordinarily they would transfer list and sell recouping a fee and the player would negotiate an ongoing contract with no loss of income dependant on what had been negotiated into the new contract

otherwise the club holds a players registration until he is off the books so they have a say in where that player goes as he is still contracted until he is gone

effectively the player could choose to not play and sit around waiting for cash each month and be counted on the cap very messy legal arguments etc refusal to pay etc

if club and player agree player gets to go somewhere else paid by them until he leaves switches to another contract with no break no transfer fee but in a salary cap sport a big club will be thankful they now have a space in the cap so everyone wins 

if the player already has a suitor so much the better for everyone as it’s an automatic switch off the cap at the right time for recruitment which can be done now in anticipation of the agreed move 

this falls down if there is no agreed move and its a possible move and not contracted then the players original contract is still in play and it messes the whole recruitment chain up 

a promise is just that and not necessarily a contract see Shaun Edwards for that one

so yes as noted it’s cap space but if ended it’s almost a case of transfer of contract from one entity or club to another along with the cap amount transferred over 

which makes the Aus market so much more lucrative and the Aus clubs better suitors as a U.K. cap amount is pretty much a lower contract for them hence Canberra have some of our best international players in one team which would be very difficult over here

In short if everyone is on the same song sheet great if not very very very messy

as an aside David furner will have to be paid out at some stage in an undisclosed behind closed doors type of scenario as he was sacked because sinny didn’t like the direction he was going in. Not sure that’s a reason to sack anyone without an appeals process in place and smacks of knee jerking desperation imho 

mr caddick may well have to fund that one it won’t be a full amount for the entire contract I imagine it would be 50% cash pay off and a covenant to keep his mouth shut

free money for doing nothing and to sweeten the pill and damage to reputation as furner isn’t a bad coach by all accounts so may be a small add on for that behind closed doors

interesting stuff always interesting to see how these sme sporting business entities choose to conduct their business out of te glare of public scrutiny

tim sheens will be another one although as Hull kr are run by an employment law specialist I imagine they have already sorted that aspect before the conversation took place 

[Harry Stottle]

53 minutes ago, Kris said:

A possible get out

a player is asked to leave with 18 months left on a contract 

ordinarily they would transfer list and sell recouping a fee and the player would negotiate an ongoing contract with no loss of income dependant on what had been negotiated into the new contract

otherwise the club holds a players registration until he is off the books so they have a say in where that player goes as he is still contracted until he is gone

effectively the player could choose to not play and sit around waiting for cash each month and be counted on the cap very messy legal arguments etc refusal to pay etc

if club and player agree player gets to go somewhere else paid by them until he leaves switches to another contract with no break no transfer fee but in a salary cap sport a big club will be thankful they now have a space in the cap so everyone wins 

if the player already has a suitor so much the better for everyone as it’s an automatic switch off the cap at the right time for recruitment which can be done now in anticipation of the agreed move 

this falls down if there is no agreed move and its a possible move and not contracted then the players original contract is still in play and it messes the whole recruitment chain up 

a promise is just that and not necessarily a contract see Shaun Edwards for that one

so yes as noted it’s cap space but if ended it’s almost a case of transfer of contract from one entity or club to another along with the cap amount transferred over 

which makes the Aus market so much more lucrative and the Aus clubs better suitors as a U.K. cap amount is pretty much a lower contract for them hence Canberra have some of our best international players in one team which would be very difficult over here

In short if everyone is on the same song sheet great if not very very very messy

as an aside David furner will have to be paid out at some stage in an undisclosed behind closed doors type of scenario as he was sacked because sinny didn’t like the direction he was going in. Not sure that’s a reason to sack anyone without an appeals process in place and smacks of knee jerking desperation imho 

mr caddick may well have to fund that one it won’t be a full amount for the entire contract I imagine it would be 50% cash pay off and a covenant to keep his mouth shut

free money for doing nothing and to sweeten the pill and damage to reputation as furner isn’t a bad coach by all accounts so may be a small add on for that behind closed doors

interesting stuff always interesting to see how these sme sporting business entities choose to conduct their business out of te glare of public scrutiny

tim sheens will be another one although as Hull kr are run by an employment law specialist I imagine they have already sorted that aspect before the conversation took place 

Yes can I see all of that Kris, but on the transferring of contract payments to other clubs,  could our fictitious player simply not say "you have broken our agreement, for that I want and deserve recompense" thereby treating any monies recived has a bonus, irrespective of obtaining employment and a new contract with another club?

If any club could become victims of our supposed scenario I should imagine Toronto would be favouites, I am taking a punt here but I would think they are close to the cap limit, now depending on how astute the club have been with regard the length of contract's awarded they could have a problem, in my opinion I do think that TWP need a radical change of their playing roster to make any impression in SL maybe even to survive in it, therefore better player's would be required and players in key positions whom we know don't come cheap e.g. Austin, Widdop, Coote for example, they would have to create some very imaginative accountancy, but as I said it is a supposed scenario, any thoughts Kris?

[Rupert Prince]

I'm afraid I began to doze off half way through tbat one. Sorry.

But why not just abolish the cap but the RLF/SL ensure that all clubs are/stay solvent ?  How is it possible that say Widnes can be so in debt.  Owners should regularly put their hand in to their pocket to keep clubs solvent.

[Canis Lupus]

Harry IMO you are underestimating the Wolfpack if you feel they would struggle to survive with their current squad. I agree it certainly needs strengthening to push on but some of the squad are proven players at a higher level. At present I would rate them as better than relegation fodder should they gain promotion .

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

I'm afraid I began to doze off half way through tbat one. Sorry.

But why not just abolish the cap but the RLF/SL ensure that all clubs are/stay solvent ?  How is it possible that say Widnes can be so in debt.  Owners should regularly put their hand in to their pocket to keep clubs solvent.

We already have an imbalance, the mere fact that we have only had 4 winners of the grand final since the inception of SL bears testament to that, abolishing the cap will do nothing but emphasise that equation so much more, we may soon get another club in Warrington joining that elite band but they will only be a replacement for Bradford, a free for all spend limit will be the end of some clubs especially under a P&R format, and a free for all spend in a closed shop with no threat of relegation will produce a lot of meaningless fixtures.

And if I was you I would be very cautious in what you suggest, your present owner does not at all seem very willing to "put his hand in his pocket" quite the reverse it seems, he must have some alternative thinking to what is required, he has shedded the burden of what I would imagine were some big earners and replaced them with two Championship players, he has shown a very successful coach the exit door all the time whilst attendences are dropping, seemingly he is doing nothing positive to entice back those fans who have taken an Holiday from the DW. He is also the one who suggests not to give anybody other than SL clubs any funding, that is a suggestion to me of someone who needs as much as he can get his hands on with no respect for any other part of the game, looking from the outside there is something amiss at your club, and it all points in the direction of Mr Leneghan.

[bobbruce]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

An afterthought 

I think that all clubs should be required to submit "live" cap spending commitments to the RFL which can be published for all and sundry to see, it can't be hard to do every club /buisness will know what their weekly wage bill is, doing that will stop any allegations of wrong doing being said.

All clubs do submit a live cap spending to the RFL. Not sure it’s a good idea to be publishing players salaries though. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Canis Lupus said:

Harry IMO you are underestimating the Wolfpack if you feel they would struggle to survive with their current squad. I agree it certainly needs strengthening to push on but some of the squad are proven players at a higher level. At present I would rate them as better than relegation fodder should they gain promotion .

Thanks for your reply, No disrespect intended Mr Wolf, are you new to the game?

You may be very correct with your assesment of your present team and of their collective ability to survive in SL, I would treat those thoughts with extreme caution if I were you, whilst I agree you have some player's who will make the transition to/back to that SL, I really would have reservations, the first 17 you can field I think would struggle with a programme were they would have to perform at 100% in every game, there would be no "breather matches" which you are privvy to for half a season now, and I also think your strength in depth is somewhat short, injuries to a few key performers would render the team so understrength, we both have our opinions and that is what us so good about sporting discussions.

[Rupert Prince]

35 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

We already have an imbalance, the mere fact that we have only had 4 winners of the grand final since the inception of SL bears testament to that, abolishing the cap will do nothing but emphasise that equation so much more, we may soon get another club in Warrington joining that elite band but they will only be a replacement for Bradford, a free for all spend limit will be the end of some clubs especially under a P&R format, and a free for all spend in a closed shop with no threat of relegation will produce a lot of meaningless fixtures.

And if I was you I would be very cautious in what you suggest, your present owner does not at all seem very willing to "put his hand in his pocket" quite the reverse it seems, he must have some alternative thinking to what is required, he has shedded the burden of what I would imagine were some big earners and replaced them with two Championship players, he has shown a very successful coach the exit door all the time whilst attendences are dropping, seemingly he is doing nothing positive to entice back those fans who have taken an Holiday from the DW. He is also the one who suggests not to give anybody other than SL clubs any funding, that is a suggestion to me of someone who needs as much as he can get his hands on with no respect for any other part of the game, looking from the outside there is something amiss at your club, and it all points in the direction of Mr Leneghan.

Lenegan is funding Wigans losses... as are other Chairmen.   The cap is irrelevant if clubs go bust but are still under the cap.    But that is what I am saying.  The  RFL should ensure that any losses should be covered and this does away with the Cap faffing around.

[deluded pom?]

5 hours ago, Kris said:

tim sheens will be another one although as Hull kr are run by an employment law specialist I imagine they have already sorted that aspect before the conversation took place 

Not according to his own website.

https://www.hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/our-people/dr-neil-hudgell/

[Canis Lupus]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for your reply, No disrespect intended Mr Wolf, are you new to the game?

You may be very correct with your assesment of your present team and of their collective ability to survive in SL, I would treat those thoughts with extreme caution if I were you, whilst I agree you have some player's who will make the transition to/back to that SL, I really would have reservations, the first 17 you can field I think would struggle with a programme were they would have to perform at 100% in every game, there would be no "breather matches" which you are privvy to for half a season now, and I also think your strength in depth is somewhat short, injuries to a few key performers would render the team so understrength, we both have our opinions and that is what us so good about sporting discussions.

Not new to the game just relatively new to Canada . I certainly agree with the comment that we are not strong in depth . That was my point regarding adding quality to push on. This season we are the team everyone wants to turn over and unfortunately raises their game. We have seen teams play us and have a real go at it then play a so called weaker team and struggle . If the pack gain promotion it will be a role reversal and a steep learning curve . There will be no freebies in SL. Other Wolfpack fans have commented that we will do much better than I posted earlier but without a huge influx of top class players I don't see it . Those players would break the SC anyway. . If promoted I am looking for a first season of getting used to the higher level before any thoughts of challenging for a top 5 place. As much as gutted to lose to London last season it was probably a good thing to temper supporter belief in how good the team actually was. Had they gone up then the squad would have needed a major revamp just to survive. It is easy to support a team winning almost every week but tighter  / harder games next season will be  better to watch if in SL. Whether the majority of fans will see it that way I am not so sure but personally winning by 40 or 50 on a regular basis isn't good for what they will expect at the next level. The party atmosphere at Lamport is great and adds to the gameday experience for new and seasoned RL fans but it needs to be secondary to what is on offer on the pitch for those who are familiar with the game.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

All clubs do submit a live cap spending to the RFL. Not sure it’s a good idea to be publishing players salaries though. 

I'm pretty sure that only applies to SL clubs and that Championship/L1 clubs are checked much less regularly but have (a duty) to inform the RFL of anything that may lead to a breach of their agreed cap eg lower than expected income

[Kris]

Well Harry, I suppose anyone could walk away from any contract, in sport where a 'licence' or 'registration' is held by the club you are contracted to play for the issue is yes you could walk away but you are lawfully registered to that club for the period you contracted for so in limbo.

You could try and claim a wrongful dismissal or even that things got so bad you had no choice but to leave constructive dismissal both would be contestable and courts and governing bodies tend to enforce the registration until any arbitration or tribunal process rules otherwise. An enforced pay drop could be constructive dismissal grounds, depends on the circumstances and each are different. An acknowledged promise to increase at a certain point could be classed as an inferred contract clause that would be enforceable at court, especially as the player may have been playing week in week out in a poorer team that doesn't support his talents so he does not perform as well. not his fault - or hers for that matter.

If the player had private means and a good cause great, if not its tie to get a job at Tesco while you wait. Or another sport, see SBW for instance, but even there a quiet dollar drop into an account shut up a few moaners

And any agreement will have a covenant stopping any revelations about shady deals or otherwise coming out, enforceable by a large 'fine' for doing so through a court or tribunal

The reality is that in employment matters only people who have a cut and dried case should risk a tribunal, everyone else will have a point to score and as such a period of reflection and negotiation usually prevents a costly tribunal process, lots of falling out and loss of cash that could have gone elsewhere.

Depends on how grown up you are I suppose. Otherwise you could get a large payout, make your lawyer richer than you, and still have no pay packet next week. Best for everyone to look for a positive resolution, give a bit take a bit, and move on. It is true in the civil court that the people that really benefit tend to be those that represent both parties, rather than the parties themselves, a lot of the time.

 

[Blind side johnny]

9 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

I'm afraid I began to doze off half way through tbat one. Sorry.

But why not just abolish the cap but the RLF/SL ensure that all clubs are/stay solvent ?  How is it possible that say Widnes can be so in debt.  Owners should regularly put their hand in to their pocket to keep clubs solvent.

Clubs are, generally, limited companies who's owners (shareholders) have no greater responsibilities than their initial share capital. Most payments subsequently by these owners are actually shareholder's loans.

[Blind side johnny]

22 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I'm pretty sure that only applies to SL clubs and that Championship/L1 clubs are checked much less regularly but have (a duty) to inform the RFL of anything that may lead to a breach of their agreed cap eg lower than expected income

You're right as always LTS and, of course, monitoring payments in a part-time environment is much more complicated than in a full-time one. The RFL relies upon the honesty of the clubs in real time but fairly thorough checks are made along the way.

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, bobbruce said:

All clubs do submit a live cap spending to the RFL. Not sure it’s a good idea to be publishing players salaries though. 

I agree, and in my suggestion it would be the whole wage figure that the club spends, I would never expect the individuals earnings to be published, if that is the case that there is a live submission and the RFL are privvy to what a club is spending in relation to the cap why hide it, make it public, what harm would it do?

I for one am really curious how some clubs have so many player's who I imagine would have a top wage earning potential, take your own club St Helens for example how do they keep from going over the cap with potential top earners such as Roby, Percival, Coote, Naquama, Lomax, Walmesley, Makinson, Fages, Taia, Thompson and maybe Grace, Paulo, LMS, Knowles and Peyroux are commanding good salaries, so that is 15 player's mentioned which I should imagine is half of a squad of say 30 which still has to be accounted for and that includes the likes of Richardson and Lees, in comparrison Leigh last season with very few players of any notable class if any at all had a cap spend of £1.67M so for another couple of hundred grand Saints can gather and maintain that most excellent squad within the alloted spend, can you see how my curiosity questions has to how it is achievable?

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Lenegan is funding Wigans losses... as are other Chairmen.   The cap is irrelevant if clubs go bust but are still under the cap.    But that is what I am saying.  The  RFL should ensure that any losses should be covered and this does away with the Cap faffing around.

Leneghan, is he really funding Wigans losses, would that be by way of releasing and not replacing Wigans better player's, and accepting the fall off in crowd number's, and you conveniently skip pass his suggestion to stop any funding below SL level, I think that any level headed person would realise what that would do to some clubs, and of course so does Mr Leneghan but he obviously does not care, he just wants the money. 

As per your suggestion of Chairmen/Owner covering any losses, the only way I see that could be done is by placing a bond with the RFL equal to the clubs worth, how many do you think would or could do that?

It would be crazy and most probably futile to say to a Chairman/Owner who if his club goes bust and I should imagine would have already lost a very large amount of money, that he/she will have to effectively double their loss. 

[bobbruce]

39 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I agree, and in my suggestion it would be the whole wage figure that the club spends, I would never expect the individuals earnings to be published, if that is the case that there is a live submission and the RFL are privvy to what a club is spending in relation to the cap why hide it, make it public, what harm would it do?

I for one am really curious how some clubs have so many player's who I imagine would have a top wage earning potential, take your own club St Helens for example how do they keep from going over the cap with potential top earners such as Roby, Percival, Coote, Naquama, Lomax, Walmesley, Makinson, Fages, Taia, Thompson and maybe Grace, Paulo, LMS, Knowles and Peyroux are commanding good salaries, so that is 15 player's mentioned which I should imagine is half of a squad of say 30 which still has to be accounted for and that includes the likes of Richardson and Lees, in comparrison Leigh last season with very few players of any notable class if any at all had a cap spend of £1.67M so for another couple of hundred grand Saints can gather and maintain that most excellent squad within the alloted spend, can you see how my curiosity questions has to how it is achievable?

Why would you think it’s an extra couple of hundred grand. I wouldn’t be surprised if Saints are spending close to £1m more than that. What with dispensations and marquee players it could be even more.

Out of those players.

Roby- isn’t he covered by the cap dispensation due to 10 years service  

Percival -doubt he’s on top money but I think Saints will have to pay up next time if they want to keep him

Coote -will be decent money but doubt he’s anywhere need the top SL earners. 

Niaquama -Marquee?.

Lomax -good money but again I doubt he’s up there with SLs top earners. 

Walmesley -Marquee. 

Makinson -Good money

fages -not on great money but Saints will have to pay up next time if they want to keep him. 

Taia -Decent money

Thompson-Still young for a prop won’t be on a massive wage but that will have to change next contract

Grace -Not great money but will be looking for a rise next contract. 

Knowles -As above

Richardson and Lees-as above

LMS -Decent money

Peyrou and Paulo-Decent money

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Why would you think it’s an extra couple of hundred grand. I wouldn’t be surprised if Saints are spending close to £1m more than that. What with dispensations and marquee players it could be even more.

Out of those players.

Roby- isn’t he covered by the cap dispensation due to 10 years service  

Percival -doubt he’s on top money but I think Saints will have to pay up next time if they want to keep him

Coote -will be decent money but doubt he’s anywhere need the top SL earners. 

Niaquama -Marquee?.

Lomax -good money but again I doubt he’s up there with SLs top earners. 

Walmesley -Marquee. 

Makinson -Good money

fages -not on great money but Saints will have to pay up next time if they want to keep him. 

Taia -Decent money

Thompson-Still young for a prop won’t be on a massive wage but that will have to change next contract

Grace -Not great money but will be looking for a rise next contract. 

Knowles -As above

Richardson and Lees-as above

LMS -Decent money

Peyrou and Paulo-Decent money

Thanks for the reply Bob, so please explain if you would be so kind what the dispensations that are allowed are? I am aware of the Marquee ruling but hasn't that still got a figure attached that the club has to submit, from memory it is £150K per marquee player, is that correct?

So are you saying that there is no level amount that all clubs must keep to, I thought it was 1.85 M plus the allowed 300K for the marquees across the board?

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for the reply Bob, so please explain if you would be so kind what the dispensations that are allowed are? I am aware of the Marquee ruling but hasn't that still got a figure attached that the club has to submit, from memory it is £150K per marquee player, is that correct?

So are you saying that there is no level amount that all clubs must keep to, I thought it was 1.85 M plus the allowed 300K for the marquees across the board?

Think the cap amount is about £2m now. These are the basic dispensations

There are more than this though that clubs can use. 

[Harry Stottle]

Thanks Bob, so with good management and manipulation a club like St Helens can really ramp up their Cap Level, alternatively a club who have not had an academy and therefore not produced any "homegrown" would be operating at a much lower level. 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for the reply Bob, so please explain if you would be so kind what the dispensations that are allowed are? I am aware of the Marquee ruling but hasn't that still got a figure attached that the club has to submit, from memory it is £150K per marquee player, is that correct?

So are you saying that there is no level amount that all clubs must keep to, I thought it was 1.85 M plus the allowed 300K for the marquees across the board?

As an aside as I say the cap is £2m I think but not plus £300k(£150k for club trained marquee players) but minus. It’s just you can spend much over £300k but that’s all it counts as.