The other thread on Catalans and the salary cap got me thinking...

Is the salary cap the same, or does it take into account differences such as taxes (catalans) and living costs (when London were in)?

For teachers there is a separate pay scale for teachers based in London which is about 10% higher than the rest of the UK.
And in France, high earners pay huge amounts of tax (I dont know what wage bracket this is and if it would affect RL players), I know PSG football struggle to sign players as over 60% of their wages go straight to the taxman- (This isn't fair as Monaco are in the same league and they pay nothing!).

London had their cap adjusted when they were in SL, not sure whether that's still the case or not. I'm unaware of any adjustment for Catalan but I could be wrong.

Les Catalans Salary Cap is €2.3m which is pretty much the £1.825m the british clubs have. They dont take in to account the differences in tax, not least because each player will have a different tax position (and no doubt some of the Aussie players will be taking advantage of some loopholes)

There is a london weighting.

the salary cap is stupid, possibly unenforceable, doesnt work and should be scrapped and replaced with one of the myriad of better, common sense options available to us.

Such as....

A points based system
Restrictions on squad size and make up
No Cap

Can you expand on the points system?

Just as a fan of a smaller club in SL, the salary cap has always been a bit of a safeguard to make sure that we can keep in touch (just) with the bigger sides. So not sure I'd like to see the cap removed entirely without some kind of alternative safeguard in place.

Not too keen on restricting squad size, we have a massive squad of players, some of whom probably wouldn't have got another SL gig before the season, but have proven to be good performers for us. The likes of Scott Moore, Matty Ashurst etc been great this year.

points system would work like the SC but rather than money, there would be points allocated to players when they were signed

It was first proposed in Australia like this

Each player would be assigned a simple points value based on how many first grade games they have played and if they have played rep footy and then clubs would have to keep under a nominal cap figure.
I haven’t done the detailed maths yet and some work would have to be done to make sure the numbers added up but it would work something like this:
Each club is given 120 points for their top 25 or 30 players. Players are worth the following:
Yet to debut: 0 points
1 – 50 games: 1 point
50 – 100 games: 2 points
100 – 150 games: 3 points
150 – 200 games: 4 points
200 – 250 games: 5 points
250 + games: 6 points
Current (last two years) Origin or international players (from Australia, New Zealand or England) would add five points to their value. I wouldn’t include other international football so clubs don’t ask their players not to play to avoid boosting their cap value. Most of the players that play for Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and so on would not make a top-tier rep team.
There would also be discounts available for the following:
• Player made their debut at their current club: minus one point
• Player has played 100 games at one club: minus one point
• Player has played 200 games at one club : minus two points
• Played 200 + games at NRL level: minus one point
• Player has played 300 + games at NRL level: minus two points
So a player like Cameron Smith would have a base points value of 11 points. For another club to sign him he would be worth nine points and to the Storm he would only register as six points.
Similarly, Paul Gallen would have a base value of 11 points and if another club wanted to sign him they would only get the one point discount. However, if Cronulla want to re-sign him, it only costs them seven points. And they might only pay him a base of $300k and find the rest in sponsorship as the most visible face of their club.
The idea of the points system is that it rewards loyalty and player development. If a club goes over the points cap in a season because three or four players made rep debuts or clocked up more club games that is ok. They can stay over, but just can’t sign any new players until they come back under the points cap.

With a few tweaks its a decent idea.

However personally i think you could do it much simpler by simply restricting the squad make up by saying your squad of say 30 (i think squads are a little small at the moment) and saying you have to include at least 15 with you before their 19th birthday, no more than 5 from overseas and no more than 7 who have played for another SL side you could achieve the same thing.

Its enforceable in the confines of a clubs membership of the RFL. If you want to be a member of the RFL you are signing up to abide by the RFLs regulations. If you don't agree to abide by the RFL regulations, then your membership can be rescinded and you are expelled from the RFL, as simple as. The 'highest court in the land' that certain people keep mentioning wouldn't give a fig. End of discussion.

RFL regulations are subject to the law the same as any organisation. The RFL cannot demand that clubs abide by an unlawful regulation, they cannot punish a club for not doing so.

What Law is the salary cap breaking?

Regards

King James

Its a restraint of trade. Some would argue a reasonable, and as so lawful one. Others that it isnt, and is an unlawful one.

Except of course the clubs voted for it and agree to be bound by it.

You can't agree to be bound by an unlawful regulation.

Well you can. You can agree to pretty much anything really. But it wouldnt be enforceable.

Do you have any more myths to serve up?



There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards

We should conduct an experiment.

Let a long standing rich club, or one of the nouveau riche with a sudden distaste for it, sue and win everything. The crowds, who are only interested in the chance to see star players, will no doubt respond.

Quote ="wire-quin"Do you have any more myths to serve up? There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards'" Quote 5.12 London Allowance In recognition of the higher living costs for London Broncos players due to their location a 10% London cost of living weighting allowance is applied to the Club’s maximum Aggregate Liability is available in addition to the Club Trained dispensation, subject to the combined value of both allowances being capped at the 10% weighting allowance. '" media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... 202016.pdf

Quote ="wire-quin"Do you have any more myths to serve up? There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards'" Quote 5.12 London Allowance In recognition of the higher living costs for London Broncos players due to their location a 10% London cost of living weighting allowance is applied to the Club’s maximum Aggregate Liability is available in addition to the Club Trained dispensation, subject to the combined value of both allowances being capped at the 10% weighting allowance. '" media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... 202016.pdf

Its up to the RFL and its members if a club is allowed membership of the RFL, not a judge. The only punishment for not agreeing to abide by the regulations is expulsion from the organisation. There is no problem with fining a club within the organisation as long as there are laid down disciplinary regulations (which there are).

Now which of your orifices are you going to argue with now, as I know you have to have the last word. However that is usually because people can't be bothered with you.

No. UK law supersedes the RFL in every aspect.

You cannot be bound by an unlawful term. Whether you agree to it or not it is unenforceable.

But it isn't fact that the salary cap would break the law or is unenforceable in law.

A company's (or most public sector body's) pay structure could similarly be described as a salary cap.

hence it being described as possibly unenforceable.

A companies pay structure is in no way comparable to the Salary Cap. There are many clear and obvious differences. Not least that a third party does not punish a company for breaking its pay structure.

A parent company could punish its subsidiary. As could a company punish a department within that company if it broke pay structures.

A company isn't a third party to its constituent parts.

If the cap is against the Law, as smokey claims, how come no one has faced criminal charges yet? In any sport?

Regards

King James

because it wouldnt be a criminal case.