1.79?

Something like £1.8m - Briers' salary would be my guess. As I recall we had a 50% dispensation on that due to length of service. I suspect we have very little room.

Yes, but the dispensation can now revert to Woody or Ben Westwood. You only get that dispensation for one player.

I never realised that T'side, I would imagine Benny is getting a pay rise now.

In my guessing we would have have to give players hefty pay increases to mop up wages of Moz Carvs Briers Hodgson and theres also other out goers Coops Tyke and Solamona and the long term loners.

I dont believe for a second that Anthony England is on a premium wage.
Asotasi maybe a straight swap with Carvell.??

One, hundred, million, dollars

There are quite a few dispensations that can lift the cap up.

I always thought that anyone who had done their time at one club got dispensation, didn't realise it was only 1.

These guessing the salary cap spend type threads are about the most pointless you can get on a forum. Nobody has any kind of idea or rationale to base it on.

For years now, we have been told by fans of other clubs that we were well over the salary cap. How can a side fit the likes of King, Monaghan, Morley, Briers, Hodgson under the cap. "Warrington must be over the cap...". Same with Salford, even on this forum some of our fans have been saying how can Salford be under the cap for next year. Looking at their squad for next year its nowhere near the quality of ours so if they are over it how can we be under it?

Everyone will base these guesses on assumptions about top players being on big money and less big names being on lower salaries but when you deal with anything to do with budgets, budgets soon get swallowed up by what is available, in a lean time for player quality, some players will be on more than you think. I also would not fall for the trap of assuming that players that have come through the youth system will automatically be on lower contracts because all it takes for them is to have been out of contract once and received offers from rival clubs and their salaries will match what they could have earned elsewhere.

The other complicating factor with contracts is they can end up being back loaded to comply with salary cap in a particular year, eg if you were signing a 3 year contract and it was going to be worth £300k over the 3 years, but the club doesn't have £100k space under the cap now, you might sign for £80k this year, £100k next year and £120k in your final year.

Ouch! Rubber Duckie gets a black eye and a thick lip off Sally C.

A fat bill surely? BTW for a pointless thread Sally certainly made some good ones.

Come on guys, everyone is aware that the only people that know what Warrington are spending on the salary cap post on either the Virtual Terrace or those facebook banter pages.

Quite right Sally. I've been privy to the salaries of a Premiership football club lately and you'd be surprised how some of the top players where on a lower salary than those with less talent.

Cue tens of people PM'ing you asking "who, who??"

The only clue I'll give you is, it looks like someone is on a pay per penalty won basis.

Ashley 'I'm a footballing fraud' Young then

Talking to a Salford fan recently about the salary cap.
He reckons Warrington pay their players low wages but their WAG's get £100,000 a year as cleaners etc at the club

That was one of the ideas that Dr Koukash was looking to try. He was warned off it by the RFL. Let them dream on.

I suspect timing is everything with negotiating contracts in football, especially with the transfer windows.

Say you're a good but not world class striker, its the last couple of days of the window and a club in desperate need of a striker tries to sign you. They agree terms with your club. You say you're not interested. They make a better offer. Still not interested. At this point the club is panicking thinking without a recognised striker what could the financial implications be? Relegation? The offer goes up and up until you can't believe what you're being offered.

Another point in football which seems almost too ridiculous to be true is the standard contract players have (in the Premiership at least) entitles them to the full value of their contract being paid up if they are transferred, so if you sign a 5 year deal worth £60k a week (£3.12m a year) and with 3 years to go you are sold to another club, you are entitled to over £9m payout. Usually if the player really wants to move, the club will just make them an offer (maybe not of the full amount) to facilitate the transfer. So 'journeymen' players that move around clubs, make a lot of money, by keeping signing contracts, then part way through moving on, settling up the rest of their contract left to run, and signing at a new club again on a good wage. This is why they make such a fuss over whether a player puts in an official transfer request, because if they do, then they forfeit the right to have their contract paid up. So as a player, if you want to trigger a move, you have to make it clear that whilst you are unhappy (at things that aren't your fault, eg the manager/not willing to be a squad rotation player/lack of club's ambition) you keep issuing statements saying you are determined to stay and fight for your place, so the club has to move you on for being a bad egg, but you haven't put in an official transfer request.

The same goes for all types of industries. I've known the wages for everyone at work for my last three jobs and you'd be surprised how many people who aren't very good at their job can earn a lot more than those who are.

It's futile comparing RL player's salaries to footballers simply because the money isn't in RL...Football TV rights run into the billions and who should receive the bulk of the money ? The players that's who Otherwise the cash would go to the directors and shareholders and who goes to watch the directors and shareholders ?

Nobody is comparing. The point is, not many people know about salaries, and those that guess usually think better player means better salary.

The other thing that gets said is that home grown players are cheaper. That only holds for a year or two though if a player is in his breakout season and does very well but is on a small contract. If a player does significantly well he's going to (reasonably) expect to get a new contract and if he doesn't he'll look elsewhere.

If home grown players were cheaper then when we were skint surely we should have kept Harris and Sculthorpe as they would have been great players to have on a bargain budget! Same with Wakefield when they were going bust (aren't they always) and they had guys like Westwood and Ellis.