Re: Propaganda? : Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:31 pm  

Tigerade wrote:

What NottsTiger has stated is correct. Other clubs do it I'm sure, but Salford have tried to do it a bit different and it's added to their problems. You need to look at who has put together the contracts of players like PT, Locke, Chase and Hock over the last couple of years. If you look at the finer detail it's easy to spot what has happened.

You've had access to the 'finer detail' in the 6 hours since you posted this?

Tigerade wrote:

You might be starting the middle 8's with a minus in the points column if this is true.

Re: Propaganda? : Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:37 pm  

This thread is hilarious. The nonsense that people make up sometimes is beyond belief.

There is no way of counting MOM bonuses outside the cap.

Re: Propaganda? : Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:56 pm  

Red_C wrote: This thread is hilarious. The nonsense that people make up sometimes is beyond belief. There is no way of counting MOM bonuses outside the cap. You have read http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1 then?

Red_C wrote: This thread is hilarious. The nonsense that people make up sometimes is beyond belief. There is no way of counting MOM bonuses outside the cap. You have read http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1 then?

Re: Propaganda? : Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:15 pm  

Sadly, no.

I didn't make my point very well. What I mean is that there is no way Salford would leave players out, due to them having supposed 'mom or appearance bonuses' that would take them over the cap.

People assume that the RFL look into these matters in a much finer detail than they actually do.

Re: Propaganda? : Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:37 pm  

Red_C wrote:

Sadly, no.

I didn't make my point very well. What I mean is that there is no way Salford would leave players out, due to them having supposed 'mom or appearance bonuses' that would take them over the cap.

People assume that the RFL look into these matters in a much finer detail than they actually do.

Something like appearance bonuses are very easy to calculate though aren't they. All the players contracts are lodged with the RFL upon signing and then the contract is signed off by the RFL as to whether it fits within the clubs salary cap. It isn't difficult to count how many games a player has played in and then add on whatever it says in his contract he'll get.

There might be ways round the cap (not as many as people think without getting into potentially deep do do) but just hoping the RFL can't count isn't one of them. Nigel Wood's fingers may be podgy but he can still use them to count with.

Re: Propaganda? : Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:11 pm  

One of the more interesting clauses is this one:

5.4.3 A player moving between Super League clubs during the regular season cannot have a lower SCV at his new club than what he had at the old one, regardless of what his new contract states.

Which by my reading means that Kevin Locke's Salary Cap Value at Wakefield must be the same as it was at Salford - allegedly one of, if not the, highest in the league!

Re: Propaganda? : Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:31 am  

Something like appearance bonuses are very easy to calculate though aren't they. All the players contracts are lodged with the RFL upon signing and then the contract is signed off by the RFL as to whether it fits within the clubs salary cap. It isn't difficult to count how many games a player has played in and then add on whatever it says in his contract he'll get.

This is true. However, the RFL has considerably less ability than people think, to actually access any records of payments to players.

The salary cap to all intents and purposes is a gentleman's agreement, there is no real way of enforcing it.

There might be ways round the cap (not as many as people think without getting into potentially deep do do) but just hoping the RFL can't count isn't one of them. Nigel Wood's fingers may be podgy but he can still use them to count with.

Nigel Wood has nothing to do with the salary cap, he has bigger fish to fry, literally

Re: Propaganda? : Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:55 pm  

http://archive.salfordonline.com/localn ... _boss.html I think you'll be all right .....

http://archive.salfordonline.com/localn ... _boss.html I think you'll be all right .....

Re: Propaganda? : Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:34 pm  

Unless something newer has happened since I had a pint with the Roberts clan at the last home match, I think you'll find he has moved on (and some time ago).

Note to Butcher: my missus has decided to rewatch all the Dallas tragedies on DVD. So far she seems to be doing it when I'm out ... but not always!

Re: Propaganda? : Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:15 pm  

BartonFlyer wrote:

One of the more interesting clauses is this one:

5.4.3 A player moving between Super League clubs during the regular season cannot have a lower SCV at his new club than what he had at the old one, regardless of what his new contract states.

Which by my reading means that Kevin Locke's Salary Cap Value at Wakefield must be the same as it was at Salford - allegedly one of, if not the, highest in the league!

Suppose it depends how you define "moved between" though - we released him so he was technically a free agent when Wakey picked him up.