Signing bonuses can definitely be treated that way but there isn’t any specific clause saying that salaries will be. In fact the only mention of it within the SC rules is that salaries may be looked at pro-rata if the auditor deems that the payment was accrued in that year. From the wording of the rules it appears that front-loading is permissible as long as it isn’t particularly egregious or detrimental to the player.
[ithe RSCM may decide to treat a Club’s liability to a Player for salary and/or specific payments or benefits (including but not limited to the specific cases set out in Clauses 5.6.6 and 5.6.7, below) as Accruing on a pro rata basis across all or part of the term of the Player’s Playing Contract, if the RSCM believes that such payment or benefit is being made in consideration for services rendered across such term.
In reaching a decision, the RSCM will act reasonably and will take into consideration:
the reasonableness of the schedule of payments and/or benefits and whether, in any given Salary Cap Year, the Player’s welfare and interests would be prejudiced by the proposed arrangements, and
the value of any termination payment (or other benefits) received by the Player from a previous club immediately before signing for the Club. The previous club may be in any country and of either rugby code and the details of any such payment must be supplied to the RSCM in writing.[/i
Now i would think that (using my completely made up example) the RFL could decide the schedule of payments unreasonable, you could easily argue that schedule of payments perfectly reasonable for a player who is declining, as well being to the benefit of the player by offering the safety of a guaranteed longer contract at their age. Maybe for Kirke the figures may seem a little excessive, but certainly for Peacock for example, you could argue that his market value was high, rapidly declining and as an ageing player he was benefitting from the security of a guaranteed longer contract.
Saying that I expect we will see a pretty significant overhaul of the SC in 2015 anyway and it will all be a bit irrelevant by then.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
