RFL and SL reunite

[wiganermike]

Pretty sure that unless they are either in the top 25 earners or they play a SL match a player doesn't count towards the cap. If that is the case then it wouldn't matter in cap terms (as a limit on spending) what clubs chose to pay their academy lads. Paying them under 15k would ordinarily mean they couldn't play in SL so they wouldn't have an impact in relation to the cap as they couldn't meet conditions to become counted towards the cap.

[rhinos78]

27 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yeah but those contracts are are impacted by the cartel that runs RL.

Each contract is a value judgement. That value judgement is impacted by the environment created.

Bob might be worth 11k now but without those market depressing efforts his actual value might be 30k and Bill's value is not only judged in relation to Bob's value but also his value under restrictions. It might be that Bill's value in an open market goes up in relation to Bob's. That the restrictions created a premium on Bobs skills but not Bill's (I.e Bob is good in numerous positions but Bill is a specialist centre who cant play anywhere else and the SC creates a premium on utility)

But theyr in the Rugby League market though arnt they, we'r talking rugby league players at rugby League clubs...If they were in the NFL or NBA or a footballer or a banker....But theyr not, pointless discussion. There Rugby League markets set at what they get offered by rugby league clubs, like i said, theyr feee to go into another 'Market' if they choose to, no one forces them to stay with the cartel as you call them.

An earlier poster said he knows for a fact theres Academy players on 3k...Did the cartel hold a gun to there head and make them sign that contract? No, course they didnt, the young players had the chance to go another career path and chose to stay with RL

 

The last bit about positions etc is nonsense. If your the star Center in scholorship your not getting less money than an average player who can be average in a couple of positions and no ones looking at utility value with reagards to the salary cap at 16 yearold, they want the best talents they can get and hope a couple from each yearly intake make it

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I despair at this sport's management. Things didn't even last two years before we're back to the same old.

But, if you go into a restaurant and order a meal that someone recommends and it doesn't suit, you may very well revert back to your old favourite for the next visit. 

The point is the recommendations came from Leneghan, McManus and Moran and all but one individual thought they would like the same as it read very well on the menu and a new chef (Elstone) was appointed to prepare it, the exception to wanting to sample this meal was the most experienced 'Food Critic' one Mr Hetherington who shouted loud and clear "you will not like it, the ingredients are wrong" having tasted the recommend fayre it was not chewed very long before it was spat out, with the new Chef very likley to lose his job.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, rhinos78 said:

The 13k is an example figure, but certainly realistic for some... you can insert any figure you want as not all academy players get paid the same.

 Cameron Smith at Leeds for example, Scholarship superstar, Leeds broke there usual pay structure for his first Contract after scholarship, pretty sure he went straight onto a professional contract from scholarship at 16 yearold.. Like anything else, the better players get more, even at that age.

A club like  Warrington are pretty active in targeting other clubs Scholarship players when it comes to signing there first Academy or in some cases professional contracts, if clubs dont offer there best youngsters competitive money, theyl lose them. How thats affected going forward is anyones guess, hopefully clubs dont start looking to there Academys as an area to save money, i fear they will though.

Yeah 3k isnt great, but if thats your market in RL, then thats your market, if the club your at thinks your a 3k level player, and no other club is offering more...Then your Markets set,  that players free to go a different career path which some do...No ones forced to sign.

 

The final paragraph can and does happen.  Academy squads have very few players who will make it.  Those long shots who are there to make the training numbers up have to achieve massive gains if they are to go any further. 

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

An earlier poster said he knows for a fact theres Academy players on 3k..

Is that allowed under the Minimum Wage levels?

[Harry Stottle]

46 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Yeah but those contracts are are impacted by the cartel that runs RL.

Each contract is a value judgement. That value judgement is impacted by the environment created.

Bob might be worth 11k now but without those market depressing efforts his actual value might be 30k and Bill's value is not only judged in relation to Bob's value but also his value under restrictions. It might be that Bill's value in an open market goes up in relation to Bob's. That the restrictions created a premium on Bobs skills but not Bill's (I.e Bob is good in numerous positions but Bill is a specialist centre who cant play anywhere else and the SC creates a premium on utility)

Was you not advocating not to long ago that player's of a certain age irrespective of being first team or academy should be exempt from the salary cap?

[Hela Wigmen]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But, if you go into a restaurant and order a meal that someone recommends and it doesn't suit, you may very well revert back to your old favourite for the next visit. 

The point is the recommendations came from Leneghan, McManus and Moran and all but one individual thought they would like the same as it read very well on the menu and a new chef (Elstone) was appointed to prepare it, the exception to wanting to sample this meal was the most experienced 'Food Critic' one Mr Hetherington who shouted loud and clear "you will not like it, the ingredients are wrong" having tasted the recommend fayre it was not chewed very long before it was spat out, with the new Chef very likley to lose his job.

I have no idea what you’re on about. The analogy is a bizarre one that doesn’t even have any relevance to Rugby League at present. 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is that allowed under the Minimum Wage levels?

I don't see why it wouldn't be if they are part time.

[rhinos78]

6 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

The final paragraph can and does happen.  Academy squads have very few players who will make it.  Those long shots who are there to make the training numbers up have to achieve massive gains if they are to go any further. 

Yeah i know, not sure if your agreeing or disagreeing. I know it happens, theres players every year who get Academy contracts at Leeds who were pretty average at scholorship level, theyr the ones on the low money who get offered to make numbers up basically, some accept the contract and back themselves to improve, some leave the game.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I have no idea what you’re on about. The analogy is a bizarre one that doesn’t even have any relevance to Rugby League at present. 

I thought you lot from St Helen's could see-through things -Another anology.

Think about it Hela, its not to difficult. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I thought you lot from St Helen's could see-through things -Another anology.

Think about it Hela, its not to difficult. 

It doesn’t make any sense or is relevant to goings on in Rugby League at the minute. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It doesn’t make any sense or is relevant to goings on in Rugby League at the minute. 

OK, I will answer you in Janet and John style in future.

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

OK, I will answer you in Janet and John style in future.

No, just a style in which the post actually has anything to do with the subject will do. 
 

[Hela Wigmen]

It’s quite depressing, this. Whatever you thought of the vote less than two years ago, the clubs voted for this structure and the Super League clubs voted to have it own leader and to break away from the rest of the game. Whatever you thought of Elstone and Super League, it’s not even lasted two years and now we’re back at the same table, likely going to go over old ground and continue doing the same things that has got the game to where it is today. 

It just seems to be typical Rugby League, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Some of the teams decided to try and strike out and it’s lasted barely eighteen months.

Its vital the game has a strong and most importantly, independent administration/administrator. 

[rhinos78]

32 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I didnt mention other sports.

The cartel didnt put a gun to his head but they did ensure that his value would be lower than it other wise was. It removed the option for him seek his market value in an open market.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will do to convince themselves that salary caps dont cap salaries 

Whats the open market? If the market isnt based on the market for the profession your in, whats it based on? 

Do you think that If there were no salary cap all these clubs who already run at a loss every year are going to start giving 12 sixteen yearold scholorship players 30k Academy contracts every year? Only an idiot would think that, what do you think? Is the salary cap a well kept secret that players dont know about? No, everyone knows about it, some obviously not clear on how it works ( by some, i mean you)... Il get to that later, but everyone knows theyr entering a salary cap profession.

If a club really want to keep a player, they offer more than what they offer another player theyr not as bothered about, this happens regardless of the salary cap. If a clubs offering you 3k now, its not going to offer 12k if there was no cap...Because neither a 3k or 12k academy contract count against the cap, because until this very recent rule change, neither amount would allow you to play first team anyways. So your cap argument is an absolute shocker, your piping up about things you clearly know nothing about.

[rhinos78]

42 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is that allowed under the Minimum Wage levels?

Im ot sure to be honest, i know Leeds academy lads also have Jobs/apprenterships and/or doing degrees, maybe thet gets round the minimum wage criteria...Also the amount of time theyr actually on the clock for a club might come into play..Eg theyr hourly rates in compliance but the ammount of time spent withn the club over the year only equates to 3k. But Like i say, im not clued up on how employment law works so these are just guesses on how they might get around the minimum wage.

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is that allowed under the Minimum Wage levels?

Yes, depends on the hours worked and ages involved. £4.15 ph Apprentice Minimum wage. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is that allowed under the Minimum Wage levels?

A lot are on pay as play wages yet still have training commitments.

[Harry Stottle]

45 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s quite depressing, this. Whatever you thought of the vote less than two years ago, the clubs voted for this structure and the Super League clubs voted to have it own leader and to break away from the rest of the game. Whatever you thought of Elstone and Super League, it’s not even lasted two years and now we’re back at the same table, likely going to go over old ground and continue doing the same things that has got the game to where it is today. 

It just seems to be typical Rugby League, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Some of the teams decided to try and strike out and it’s lasted barely eighteen months.

Its vital the game has a strong and most importantly, independent administration/administrator. 

OK, I agree with what you say,  but "some teams decided to strike out" they all did and it and having tried it did not suit the majority which the gang of 3 recommended, it suited themselves and they wished for everyone else to follow.

Totally in agreement we need a strong administrator but for for just one faction of the sport to overlook it all.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK, I agree with what you say,  but "some teams decided to strike out" they all did and it and having tried it did not suit the majority which the gang of 3 recommended, it suited themselves and they wished for everyone else to follow.

Totally in agreement we need a strong administrator but for for just one faction of the sport to overlook it all.

Is a year and six games enough time to find “it didn’t suit the majority”? Is that a fair sample size? Perhaps by Rugby League standards but it’s really not. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Is a year and six games enough time to find “it didn’t suit the majority”? Is that a fair sample size? Perhaps by Rugby League standards but it’s really not. 

I think thats fair comment. Elstone should have been judged on the post 2021 scenario 

[rhinos78]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If a club isnt going to change its payment structure because of the lack of salary cap then there is no need or point in having a salary cap, in that situation the salary cap is needless administration that doesnt contribute.

Our market isnt open, its closed. It has rules and regulations that impact on the market forces of a free and open market. Those rules and regulations were put in place precisely to do that.

Your example or so misses an important point, and that missed point betrays your lack of knowledge and understanding regarding market forces.

Perhaps that money losing clubs wont offer 3k. Maybe it doesnt change its structure. But perhaps another club does. Perhaps another clubs says fair enough, I'll take a punt at 3.5k year, and another one says meh, 4k why not. Perhaps another club really likes him and has plenty of money and says fine 10k a year. 

Do you struggle with reading Or retaining information? I said if your current club offers you 3k and no other club offers you more, then your market in RL is set at 3k...If another club does offer you more, eg your 10 k, then obviously your Markets set at 10k, is that not common sense? Is that not in corelation with what iv been saying? It is yeah...Your rugby league markets set by what a rugby league clubs  willing to offer you...Your arguing with yourself because you'v just agreed with me.

The salary cap isnt stopping a club giving a 3k player 12k, not sure why you keep using the cap, your clutching at a straw that isnt there....Every Academy player in the country could be on 14k and none would affect the cap...So if the caps the issue, why arnt all these lads on 14k? Why are there lads on 3k...Its because the clubs dont want to give them 14k, nothing to do with the cap, they just dont think theyr worth it.

Your right, im not clued up on market forces, thats why i dont go on buisness forums, if i did, id most likely come across as clueless as you do on Rugby League ones.

 

 

[dboy]

15 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Not the first teamers. I know because my dad taught Jack Walker and there's a difference between "being in education" with a rugby job and being in education for everyone else.

 

About 15 Wakefield Academy players study at Wakefield College. As well as the training/playing aspects, they study on the exact same academic courses as (and with), "normal" students.

It's the same education as every other learner.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s quite depressing, this. Whatever you thought of the vote less than two years ago, the clubs voted for this structure and the Super League clubs voted to have it own leader and to break away from the rest of the game. Whatever you thought of Elstone and Super League, it’s not even lasted two years and now we’re back at the same table, likely going to go over old ground and continue doing the same things that has got the game to where it is today. 

It just seems to be typical Rugby League, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Some of the teams decided to try and strike out and it’s lasted barely eighteen months.

Its vital the game has a strong and most importantly, independent administration/administrator. 

To be fair, and I think Harry's restaurant analogy was pretty good in a way, if you run a business and you try something you dont just keep doing it when you know you have made a bit of a mess of it.. If it is not working you change and move forward again. Sometimes the initial move is a step backwards because the old system worked better than the new. Not every change is going to work or be good, the companies that fail are those that dont try, but also those that try and keep blindly on without realising when something just isnt working. 

Equally these are very strange times, what could have worked before are potentially going to be shaken to the core. There will be plenty of good companies that go to the wall for no other reason than their market has disappeared without warning and will not return, or at least not fast enough to keep them going. That does not mean the idea was bad necessarily but that the situation has changed and therefore the thinking must change. 

After the virus we are likely to go into one of the deepest and, frankly, scariest recessions we have seen since the great depression (as a businessman and history graduate i am very worried).. they MUST look at where money is leaking from the game and where they are just being stubborn due to personality issues. 

I would not necessarily disagree with the need for an independent administrator/commissioner (looking at the US models) and I think Elstone will keep his job to fulfill that role but I would guess there is a lot of doubling of workload, rent that doesnt need to be paid etc etc that can be taken out of all of this to save money with no impact on the efficiency of the running of the organisation (and actually perhaps make the running of it more efficient if they are all in the same office building etc).

to see "going back to what you had before" as intrinsically a "backward step" in terms of it being negative is something that I abhor because it is better to do that than to keep going forward... Many many projects do not get off the ground because they wont work, many also do get off the ground but are scrapped because they dont work when put into practice, same with product development and all sorts of other things. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Is a year and six games enough time to find “it didn’t suit the majority”? Is that a fair sample size? Perhaps by Rugby League standards but it’s really not. 

it is when you add the amazing economic crisis we now face.. 

It wasnt working enough to keep ploughing it forward in such extraordinarily uncertain times.. perhaps they will revist this in a few years time when things are a little more stable or perhaps now, when both the RFL and SL have their hands forced, they will just solve the issues that made them split in the first place that are probably not insurmountable but hinged, at the time, on issues around strength of personality.