Click Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: But Hetherington ain't signed a playing contract has he? What I don't know - hopefully someone can advise - is Stanley in a new contract or in year 'X' of a multiple year contract. That information should settle your argument. I don't even think that would be relevant to this either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: What is stupid is counting a players salary against a salary cap when he may or not be a player for them. What is the point of it? It's no more dumb than counting hetheringtons wages. They shouldn't have signed him if he cannot play for them, it isn't a hard thing to work out - A club contracts a player for X amount of time, Whether that player plays or not, he is still under contract and being paid. It's TO's own mess that has created this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudger06 Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said: Yep, I agree and if you recall I stated last year that through the murmurings coming through the grapevine, what is relevant though is how the count stacks up from the council of SL Bosses, if the statement that TWP and Catalan are guests of SLE and therefore are devoid of any voting rights then it only takes 6 Chairmen to make your life unpleasant. Catalans are most certainly not guests. Still only takes 6 Chairmen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudger06 Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 According to both the TWP Website & the SL Website Chase Stanley is indeed a TWP Player. Lol. Deery me........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 39 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: You have described the stupidity of the salary cap quite succinctly. The only stupidity here is a club signing a player they apparently cannot play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, scotchy1 said: So far we have got you justifying that someone who hasnt played and may not play for the side as counting on the cap, along with the wages two other players earned while not playing for a completely different club. The salary cap is eating itself. It is an administrative ouroboros of nonsense I'm not interested in a discussion on the merits of the cap. We've decided to use one, as have plenty of other leagues, you don't like it, we know. But Stanley is a TWP player, has played for them before - if they want him off the cap they should release him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Funkhouser Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Click said: The only stupidity here is a club signing a player they apparently cannot play. It's not only stupidity, it is irresponsible and negligent in respect to the other members of the undersized squad. Aside the money it cannot be much fun been one of the cattle at TW this season with no rest in sight for anyone with anything but a severe injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said: But Hetherington ain't signed a playing contract has he? What I don't know - hopefully someone can advise - is Stanley in a new contract or in year 'X' of a multiple year contract. That information should settle your argument. See this article from December 2019... https://www.torontowolfpack.com/chase-stanley-re-signs-with-the-wolfpack/ Not that it makes much difference. Clubs are bound to: submit the documentation in a timely fashion, ensure that the submission is accurate and gain express approval prior to committing to any transaction that changes its aggregate cap liability. So they would have probably submitted the paperwork by the time the article was written as, presumably they expected him to have a pre-season with them. What this suggests is that the SBW recruitment was either opportunist and/or incompetent team management as it meant that they: had to take a declared marquee player's entire salary into the cap (only allowed 2) ran out of quota spots, thus triggering the Chase Stanley passport/visa saga left themselves with insufficient cap to create a full squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Evans Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Celt said: Your entire post is on point mate. Unfortunately, you have large numbers of people in the RugbyLeague community (Including a good few on here) who actually think that we should have a third Wakefield team ahead of Toronto. (A village team at that, with a seriously unsavoury and xenophobic/racist element among their travelling support). Maybe we are wrong though, and Sonny Bill Williams would have signed for them instead of TWP. We're all darlins at fev.... we engage in a little exciting badinage and social discourse after church on sundays..... before cheering on the boys of post office road.... Angels the lot of us!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Just now, scotchy1 said: plenty of players can't play for a variety of reasons, why count them on the cap? Nobody has yet provided a good reason why Stanley's wage should count on the cap whilst he hasnt played. Nobody has yet provided a good reason why a player who doesnt play should count on the cap. Why his wage should count on the cap - all players wages count on the cap unless the club seeks dispensation Players who don't play count on the cap unless the club seeks a dispensation. (Cas did so with Gale when it was likely he would miss a whole season). Like your tax commitment is your responsibility, a club's cap commitment is its responsibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 It's really simple. The salary cap covers your squad, Chase Stanley was named in their squad by TWP. If his visa issue stops him from playing this year then I expect a release and dispensation if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 minute ago, scotchy1 said: There is a substantial difference between Cas and Gale and Stanley. Cas got dispensation for Gale to take his wages off the cap. Im not saying that Toronto should get dispensation to take Stanleys wage off the cap. What i am saying is that having Stanley's wage on the live cap which would stop them signing players on loan that fit under the cap when calculated over the whole year is clearly a stupid administrative failure. It actually stops them spending their cap. De-registering Stanley off the live cap now wont allow Toronto to spend a penny over the salary cap on their players. Well no, what is the root cause of why Chase Stanley can't play now for TWP when he did play for them last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: My argument here isnt that a salary cap is bad (in most cases it is) the argument here is our cap and the way we have chosen to implement is bad. We have chosen for no discernible benefit to count wages earned by wigan players, whilst they were Wigan players, whilst they had no relationship with Toronto as wages against Toronto's cap. But only temporarily. For some reason the rules pretend in february that the wages earned in december by Ben Kilner are Toronto's salary cap liability. We have also decided that the wages Kilner will earn in october are Toronto's cap liability. We will, in April, when Kilner returns to Wigan, forget that we ever pretended his December wages were Toronto's liability, we will also forget that we ever pretended that his October wages were Toronto's. We will stop the whole pointless delusion and remember that a months loan means he is there for a month. We have also chosen, for no discernible benefit, to aggregate Stanley's wage even though he may not play for Toronto again, for the entire year on the live cap even though he may never play. So right now Toronto's cap is made up of players who may not play for them, and money players earned playing for other clubs before they joined toronto. Salary caps are bad, our is particularly bad. You are confusing amounts paid to players with their cap liability (which just happens to be calculated from their contracted salary and benefits). Think of the cap as a transfer value that is decided at the start of the RL year (Nov or later) - the value remains the same no matter what time of year it is. If you want the player you take the cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 minute ago, scotchy1 said: Its not really simple, if it were you wouldnt keep getting it wrong. If Toronto release Stanley his cap value will stay exactly the same. They will derive no cap benefit from it. If TWP terminate Stanley's contract then they should apply to the authority for a dispensation who will (acting reasonably) decide whether to allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Well, as far as I can ascertain (admittedly without much effort) its been that way since 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooleboy Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 23 minutes ago, Celt said: Your entire post is on point mate. Unfortunately, you have large numbers of people in the RugbyLeague community (Including a good few on here) who actually think that we should have a third Wakefield team ahead of Toronto. (A village team at that, with a seriously unsavoury and xenophobic/racist element among their travelling support). Maybe we are wrong though, and Sonny Bill Williams would have signed for them instead of TWP. So kick Cas and Wakey out and let Fev in. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Just now, scotchy1 said: Dispensation by its very nature is a deviation from the rules. The fact is that in the absence of the game choosing not to apply the rules as written that Stanley will count on the cap. We seem to have hit a point where people are defending the rules by stating we don't have to apply them. Thats pretty much the definition of a bad rule You mean just like the income tax rules It's your responsibility to manage your situation - if there are ways of reducing your liability its up to you to ask for them to be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 But they are the rules and have been agreed by all the participating SL clubs. As it is the clubs who really have the power then maybe they should be pushing for changes. However most, if not all, seem ok with them as there doesn't seem to have been any groundswell of opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 minute ago, scotchy1 said: Well considering Wakefield, Bradford, Wigan, Hull, Halifax, St Helens, and Leeds have all broken the cap, some multiple times. Its difficult to argue they seem ok with the rules. Ah, but some of them, e.g. Bradford were before the cap became 'live' and when it wasn't clear what would trigger certain payments to appear in the cap (IIRC a business sponsoring a player outside the cap [might have been money to attend functions, a car, free meals or whatever] - no direct links to the club. Then, inadvertently, paying the club for an advert - changed their status to having direct links to the club) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBone Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Well considering Wakefield, Bradford, Wigan, Hull, Halifax, St Helens, and Leeds have all broken the cap, some multiple times. Its difficult to argue they seem ok with the rules. They were penalised for breaking them, in line with the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 36 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Its not really simple, if it were you wouldnt keep getting it wrong. If Toronto release Stanley his cap value will stay exactly the same. They will derive no cap benefit from it. That is not true. Have you actually bothered to read the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfolly Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Scotchy, Toronto have spent their entire cap. What do you mean they can not spend their entire cap because of Stanley. They already have done, whether stanley can play or not is irrelevant, they have signed him.It is down to rank bad management that Toronto find themselves in this situation.I ,for one want them to succeed in S.L. but they desperately need to sort their backroom staff out to have any chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayakman Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 1 minute ago, fairfolly said: Scotchy, Toronto have spent their entire cap. What do you mean they can not spend their entire cap because of Stanley. They already have done, whether stanley can play or not is irrelevant, they have signed him.It is down to rank bad management that Toronto find themselves in this situation.I ,for one want them to succeed in S.L. but they desperately need to sort their backroom staff out to have any chance. Its all going to work its way out...already has...time to move forward now....just another minor growing pain is all. I can feel it...we are about to go on a good streak...its in the air....don't you sniff it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, fairfolly said: Scotchy, Toronto have spent their entire cap. What do you mean they can not spend their entire cap because of Stanley. They already have done, whether stanley can play or not is irrelevant, they have signed him.It is down to rank bad management that Toronto find themselves in this situation.I ,for one want them to succeed in S.L. but they desperately need to sort their backroom staff out to have any chance. It's an interesting sequence of events. TWP tried it on with SLE by spending around £4.5m on 23 players so they could get a cap increase. SLE said no. They pushed it with the quota, and are now struggling to get Stanley a permit. Noble left the club shortly after trying to defend himself by saying they had been asking for dispensation for 18 months. I don't think it is a coincidence that Noble has left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said: Thats a nice narrative you have made up Dave but you wouldnt accept that imagination from anyone else. It's more believable than the narrative that they are the poor victim here and have tried their very best to get a full squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.