Players reject salary cut (Merged Threads)

[Hela Wigmen]

I wanted it to be the dawn of a proper era of administration in Rugby League and more specifically, Super League when Robert Elstone come in. There were a couple of early, bold moves that Super League took and it looked like maybe, just maybe, we were approaching a corner to turn. We, quickly slammed the foot on the break pedal and slammed into reverse and decisions made have been more and more bizarre as they’ve gone on. Now, I’m absolutely lost as to what Elstone’s purpose is anymore. He’s swallowing a big wage that could be put to far better use in a plethora of ways. 

We’re a sport born out of division but the infighting that has gone on since then is tiresome and well beyond annoying. It’s easy to see why people get disillusioned and lost to the game when we’re run as comically as this. 

At a time where we need strong leadership, I can’t remember the last time I saw Elstone on TV or being interviewed and making a decision. 

[Gooleboy]

2 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I wanted it to be the dawn of a proper era of administration in Rugby League and more specifically, Super League when Robert Elstone come in. There were a couple of early, bold moves that Super League took and it looked like maybe, just maybe, we were approaching a corner to turn. We, quickly slammed the foot on the break pedal and slammed into reverse and decisions made have been more and more bizarre as they’ve gone on. Now, I’m absolutely lost as to what Elstone’s purpose is anymore. He’s swallowing a big wage that could be put to far better use in a plethora of ways. 

We’re a sport born out of division but the infighting that has gone on since then is tiresome and well beyond annoying. It’s easy to see why people get disillusioned and lost to the game when we’re run as comically as this. 

At a time where we need strong leadership, I can’t remember the last time I saw Elstone on TV or being interviewed and making a decision. 

I have criticised him in the past Hela as you know, and this is why. You never see him or read many quotes from him, and he was brought in by Super League's Club Owners who told us how good things were going to be with him in his role. Well I have never been convinced by him, and strong leadership is what the game cries out for.

[Angelic Cynic]

In fairness to Mr Elstone he did take a 40% pay cut - https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/super-league-chief-robert-elstone-takes-pay-cut/

and his priority is 'broadcasting deals and investment' - https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/robert-elstone-super-league-proposals-4155965

Equally,it does appear that some of those on the stage when he was announced do appear to be attempting to distance themselves.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Gooleboy]

32 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

In fairness to Mr Elstone he did take a 40% pay cut - https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/super-league-chief-robert-elstone-takes-pay-cut/

and his priority is 'broadcasting deals and investment' - https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/robert-elstone-super-league-proposals-4155965

Equally,it does appear that some of those on the stage when he was announced do appear to be attempting to distance themselves.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Can't fault the gesture regarding his pay cut, he was introduced with a fanfare by the Club Owners, but what has he done to justify his appointment?

[cookey]

Just now, Gooleboy said:

Can't fault the gesture regarding his pay cut, he was introduced with a fanfare by the Club Owners, but what has he done to justify his appointment?

What is he allowed to do by the owners? Why employ him,if they give him no powers to change things?

[Gooleboy]

19 minutes ago, cookey said:

What is he allowed to do by the owners? Why employ him,if they give him no powers to change things?

Can't disagree, but why the big announcement by the Owners on how things would change? 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

22 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

In fairness to Mr Elstone he did take a 40% pay cut - https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/super-league-chief-robert-elstone-takes-pay-cut/

and his priority is 'broadcasting deals and investment' - https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/robert-elstone-super-league-proposals-4155965

Equally,it does appear that some of those on the stage when he was announced do appear to be attempting to distance themselves.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

In that case If we don’t get a significant increase from the next broadcasting deal, Mr Elstone should be on his way out.

[Tommygilf]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-super-league-clubs-still-22343752.amp?__twitter_impression=true

According to this article:

"Castleford, Hull KR, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan are the six clubs in question, with all due for talks with players union the GMB this week."

Ie, those 4 that are skint and those 2 that have signed a big name for next season.

[Angelic Cynic]

On 11/07/2020 at 16:00, Gooleboy said:

Can't fault the gesture regarding his pay cut, he was introduced with a fanfare by the Club Owners, but what has he done to justify his appointment?

 Apart from bringing in ideas direct from the NRL for on-field matters - not a lot that has been reported.

 Having taken staff from the RFL it is hoped that he is making inroads into investment - both before and after securing a better broadcast deal.

[wiganermike]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-super-league-clubs-still-22343752.amp?__twitter_impression=true

According to this article:

"Castleford, Hull KR, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan are the six clubs in question, with all due for talks with players union the GMB this week."

Ie, those 4 that are skint and those 2 that have signed a big name for next season.

Given the recent Bateman signing (albeit for next season) plus the stated interest from a consortium involving Ian Lenegan in buying Wigan Athletic I don't find it too surprising that we (Wigan) are one of those yet to reach agreement on ongoing cuts. Hopefullly the 6 clubs will all get it sorted this week.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Given the recent Bateman signing (albeit for next season) plus the stated interest from a consortium involving Ian Lenegan in buying Wigan Athletic I don't find it too surprising that we (Wigan) are one of those yet to reach agreement on ongoing cuts. Hopefullly the 6 clubs will all get it sorted this week.

Yeah I can imagine how the conversations are going however.

[Lowdesert]

One player asking for a strike at Wakefield, according to press.

[DoubleD]

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-super-league-clubs-still-22343752.amp?__twitter_impression=true

According to this article:

"Castleford, Hull KR, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan are the six clubs in question, with all due for talks with players union the GMB this week."

Ie, those 4 that are skint and those 2 that have signed a big name for next season.

Technically you could say 3 of those 6 have signed big names for next year. I don’t think Cas are skint, they’ve just signed Evalds. They don’t have as much capital as the other 2 though granted

[Red Willow]

Salford have signed a replacement for Evalds, I guess the issue with the pay cut is if you are already on less money then the impact of a cut is greater.

[Tommygilf]

59 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Technically you could say 3 of those 6 have signed big names for next year. I don’t think Cas are skint, they’ve just signed Evalds. They don’t have as much capital as the other 2 though granted

True, and Salford have signed Escare to replace him.

I wonder if with some clubs the issue is that cuts have opened up space in the cap that has now been used to sign new players meaning it cannot be restored to the existing team? I still think for Wakefield and Hull KR this is a case of not taking deeper cuts though.

[DoubleD]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

True, and Salford have signed Escare to replace him.

I wonder if with some clubs the issue is that cuts have opened up space in the cap that has now been used to sign new players meaning it cannot be restored to the existing team? I still think for Wakefield and Hull KR this is a case of not taking deeper cuts though.

In fairness to Salford, I would imagine Escare is on a lower salary than Evalds, so they could show that is them cutting costs. However, there were rumours that Cas might pay a fee to get Evalds this season, which clearly would not go down well with the pay cuts elsewhere

[Lowdesert]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-super-league-clubs-still-22343752

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

In fairness to Salford, I would imagine Escare is on a lower salary than Evalds, so they could show that is them cutting costs. However, there were rumours that Cas might pay a fee to get Evalds this season, which clearly would not go down well with the pay cuts elsewhere

Exactly 

[Tommygilf]

16 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-super-league-clubs-still-22343752.amp?__twitter_impression=true

According to this article:

"Castleford, Hull KR, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan are the six clubs in question, with all due for talks with players union the GMB this week."

Ie, those 4 that are skint and those 2 that have signed a big name for next season.

2 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/six-super-league-clubs-still-22343752

Cough cough

[Dave T]

I think this is a tricky situation.

However if players agree to, say, a 20% pay cut across the board, then the club should have their cap reduced by 20%. You can't make pay cuts and then still pay the full cap.

If Warrington's current bill is £2.5m and they go down to £2m then the ask of a 20% pay cut is more reasonable. However I can understand why players wouldn't be happy with the situation.

[wiganermike]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

True, and Salford have signed Escare to replace him.

I wonder if with some clubs the issue is that cuts have opened up space in the cap that has now been used to sign new players meaning it cannot be restored to the existing team? I still think for Wakefield and Hull KR this is a case of not taking deeper cuts though.

Despite the wage cuts the salary cap values of players remain the same so the cuts won't have altered the amount of space left on the cap for clubs. This was stated when clubs agreed their original wage cut regimes (for the suspension period prior to training resuming).

[Lowdesert]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a tricky situation.

However if players agree to, say, a 20% pay cut across the board, then the club should have their cap reduced by 20%. You can't make pay cuts and then still pay the full cap.

If Warrington's current bill is £2.5m and they go down to £2m then the ask of a 20% pay cut is more reasonable. However I can understand why players wouldn't be happy with the situation.

Where would that 20% go then, Dave?

The reasons why players are complaining are simplistic enough.  If you are doing the work, then you should receive full pay, unless you've agreed to take a reduction on contractually agreed wages.  Not agreeing and receiving reduced wages is then an issue.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Where would that 20% go then, Dave?

The reasons why players are complaining are simplistic enough.  If you are doing the work, then you should receive full pay, unless you've agreed to take a reduction on contractually agreed wages.  Not agreeing and receiving reduced wages is then an issue.

The 20% wouldn't go anywhere, as the principle is that the clubs can't afford to pay that money, hence asking players to take less. 

If you currently pay £2.5m, claim you can't afford that and then carry on paying it after your employees take a pay cut, that doesn't work.

Edit. Not sure if you mis-read my original post, I said I understand why players are not happy.

[wiganermike]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a tricky situation.

However if players agree to, say, a 20% pay cut across the board, then the club should have their cap reduced by 20%. You can't make pay cuts and then still pay the full cap.

If Warrington's current bill is £2.5m and they go down to £2m then the ask of a 20% pay cut is more reasonable. However I can understand why players wouldn't be happy with the situation.

Pay cuts don't alter the cap value of the players. If a club was paying £2 million with all of it counting towards the squad cap value in salaries then agreed 20% wage cuts they would in reality be paying out £1.6 million but as far as the RFL cap management is concerned they would still be treated as if paying £2 million. There would be no need to lower there salary cap allowance as it is treated as if nothing has changed. It might well annoy the rest of the squad though if having agreed those cuts that the club went out and spent the £400k saving on new players. This may be a part of the issue at some of the 6 clubs.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Pay cuts don't alter the cap value of the players. If a club was paying £2 million with all of it counting towards the squad cap value in salaries then agreed 20% wage cuts they would in reality be paying out £1.6 million but as far as the RFL cap management is concerned they would still be treated as if paying £2 million. There would be no need to lower there salary cap allowance as it is treated as if nothing has changed. It might well annoy the rest of the squad though if having agreed those cuts that the club went out and spent the £400k saving on new players. This may be a part of the issue at some of the 6 clubs.

Sorry, in simple terms, I am talking about the player wage bill. If they have a blanket wage cut of 20%, the club should be paying 20% less in wages.