You should by now know that if it is in fact fact you have to put fact in capitals. FACT!

Basic rules of forum etiquette.

People certainly don't know enough to be getting as excited about it as they do.

Going ballistic about something you suspect but will never be able to prove either way is a weird aspect of posters on message boards like this.

Sometimes it isn't even what you suspect, it's something you're paranoid about because it once happened in the past.

It's amazing how rumours on here can morph into 'reality'.

Good examples. IL won't pay transfer fees because Charlie Seeling and his mates, who claimed to know everything, said he wouldn't. Then he goes and signs Martin Gleeson. It's not just where finance is concerned. Trent Barrett has come over crocked and will miss three quarters of his first season. We get all the usual eye-rolling and 'FFS' appearing. And then Barrett plays two full seasons, very well indeed, barely missing a match.

Even those who think they are close to the club ought to consider that the information they get is drip-fed to them for a purpose. They could be being used as part of someone's agenda.

Those who assure us that they've got their info from the horse's mouth and that it's a FACT are not necessarily right. The only FACT is that they were told this info by someone who ought to know. It doesn't mean it's true.

Don't hate the club over things that may belong in fantasy. Believe in disaster only when it occurs. That should be our motto.

Well it appears Danny Sculthorpe is on around £84,000 per year.

[urlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/rugby_league/article2437778.ece[/url

[size=200FACT![/size

Quality post.

My brother in law played super league for a number of years and didn't know what half his team mates earned.

I thought that we were able to deregister 2 players if they were ruled out long term, eg with Pryce last year. We still pay them but there inability to play means they are not counted towards the cap?

More like £141k if you believe that.

£1600 x 52 weeks =

So that means Barrett's. Mathers, Higham, and Calderwoods wages (not forgetting Goulding and Mossops loans) results in us being able to sign Gleeson, Roberts, Riddell and Pryce plus some pay rises for the younger players.

Given the last three new signings in that list, because they are IL signings and not superstars, are bound to be on reasonable wages (aren't they?) with only Gleeson on a high wage then it still suggests the four former players were not on as great a wage as people like to think.

People can't have it both ways. If Barrett & Co were on high wages I'd expect better than Gleeson plus the other three.

We don't know either way (apart form JJ's old posts on Higham and Calders salaries) who earned what but what we do know is we didn't get an influx of top quality players when these players left and to get Gleeson further room had to be made under the cap.

Dave

We don't know that at all, just like nobody on here is likely to know how much or little players past or present have/are being paid.

Hi folks, been reader for a while but this is my first post. I know it's off topic but DaveO's comment below set me off on a hobby horse about our use of the salary cap.



Which, in my opinion, means we are still not doing things as cleverly as some clubs in regard to the use of the salary cap.

As well as Fielden, we still have plenty of established players signed in the pre IL era and I can envisage that, just as with Barrett, we won't get as much benefit when Fielden goes as we thought we would. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes us several years to get back on track.

If it is costing [ihim[/i £1600. Implication is this is after tax/NI.

£1600 / 0.59 x 52 weeks = £141k

Compensation payments made to players who leave early are spread pro-rata over the duration of his contract period. So in Barrett's case any payment made would count on this years cap since he left at the end of the second year of the three year deal.

Now if we paid off Riddell for example, a portion of the compensation would count this season and two larger amounts for the next two.

So its not impossible to pay players off and incur less cap liability if you can convince the player a pay off from us plus the wages they earn at their new club is the same or better then what they would get if they stayed here but not playing. For example:

Lets say Riddell is on £100K and we fix him up with a deal to move to Wire now for £70K a season and agree to pay him £90K compensation.

That would be £15K this year, and £37.5K for the next two seasons due to him in compensation.

He would earn in 2009 £50K from us for the first half of the season already paid, £35K from Wire for the second half plus the £15K compensation for 2009, total £100K, his expected wage from us.

For the last two years of his deal he would get £70K from Wire plus £37.5K from us, total £107.5K per year. So he'd be better off.

The important thing to remember is the compensation we paid would be his ONLY liability on the cap to us each season (£15K this year, £37.5K for 2010 and 2011). His wages are wiped off the cap completely included money already paid to him. Those are the rules which mean we would free up £62.5K in 2010,11 and £85K this year (that is we could sign a player who's [isalary cap value [/iwas judged to be £85K this year and £62.5K for the next two).

Taxi for Riddell?



Assuming there has been no change in the regulations since then on this point, no we didn't. If a players contract is terminated before he plays a "salary cap relevant match" anything paid to him does not count on the cap.

A salary cap relevant match is:

"Any first team rugby football league fixture played between two Clubs in either: (a) the Super League competition (including play-offs); (b) the World Club Challenge competition; (c) the Challenge Cup competition (quarter-final, semi-final and final only); or (d) such other fixture as the RFL may prospectively determine to be a Salary Cap Relevant Match from time to time."

Davico got injured in a pre-season friendly so it was simply a matter of terminating his contract and paying whatever the two parties agreed or were contracted to. No cost to us on the cap. That is probably why he was out the door as quick as he was. If he was a cost to us we may as well have hung onto him to see if he recovered.

Dave