Like Denis Moran did at Wigan.

Having read that again I don't think any wages prior to the move to the new club would count on the new clubs salary cap. If we employed said player on 10k a month for 6 months of the season then for that season his wages are actually 60k?

I don't know if this will help, but I'm going to say the same thing in a different way...

At [ino point[/i can the wage spend be above the cap as calculated over the year to come. So you can't save cap space early in the season and use it as extra at the end.

So, if the cap is £1.6m and your projected spend at the start of the period is £1.5m, then halfway through you'll have spent £750k. Over the second half of the season you can still only spend £800k, not £850k - because the latter would be like temporarily operating with an annual cap of £1.7m.
So in some ways it is easier to think of a live cap over shorter periods, rather than as annual thing - £133k per month, £30769 per week, these being absolute limits each month/week, not averages.

So using Watts as an example, the proportion of the cap he takes up will be based on his annual salary, not his pay from signing to October (or whenever). To talk about 'this year's cap' is misleading.

I think.

His wages yes, but he'd be taking up £120k worth of cap space. I think.

Surely you can spend 1.6 million over the course of the season and how you spread that out is upto you?

A club projecting to spend 1 million on wages at the start of the season surely has 600k to use however they like for the rest of the season? Or are we saying that the salary cap is actually 133k a month?

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/RFL%20Operational%20Rules%20section%20E.pdfSalary Cap Rules[/url

Extract when signing a player in mid season.....

For example, where a Player enters into a Playing Contract with a new Club commencing
on 1 June (ie 6 months into the Salary CapYear) and providing that he will (for the remaining
six months of the Salary Cap Year):
(i) be paid a Gross salary of £5,000 per month;
(ii) receive benefits to the Gross value of £1,000 per month; and
(iii) be paid £250 per appearance,
for the purposes of the Regulations, the Salary Cap Value for that Player, as at the date of
joining the new Club, will be £76,500, calculated as follows:
(i) £60,000 (ie £5,000 salary per month x 12 months);
(ii) £12,000 (ie £1,000 benefits per month x 12 months); and
(iii) £4,500 (ie £250 per appearance x 18 assumed appearances, in accordance with clause 5.6.3, below).

The devils in the detail.

If Watts is going to be on 100k a year. This year his contract will say he is on 50k a year.

In simple terms, I think! If we started the year only spending £1.55m from Nov-Sep, that means in October we could sign someone for one month for £100k.

Edit: Scrap that, don't think it does! Balls to it, let Pearson & McRae sort it out!

How about Peter Sterling, he's bald?

As that was the first time I've ever quoted one of your posts (that I can recall), I can see how you must think I have an 'unhealthy obsession with you'.

I think SL needs a larger bald representation.

On the salary cap description, I think it's possibly just a poorly worded effort at attempted pro rata. The amount of cap you are using is esentially the total of all the cap values of the players currently in your squad. So the clubs aren't really having all of the player's wages included on their cap, or even multiple clubs having the same player on their cap at the same time, it's only for the time they are at the club. So we don't have Watts adding £60k to our cap spend, but for the remaining months of the year we do have a player worth £60k pa on our cap, if that makes sense.

So for example, say Watts was on £60k pa at both clubs, both clubs were at maximum cap level, and O'Carroll was on the same wage. To fit Watts in we release O'Carroll, we therefore have one player with a cap value of £60k going out, and one in, but we still only paid each £30k, so the cap in total is also right. And Rovers now have £60k of cap value spare to bring someone in if they want.

I think that's how it would work, seems the most logical.

Is Keith Senior doing anything these days?

He's bald.

Until I saw the rules posted earlier, I assumed it was £1.6m as and when and savings could be recouped. But actually this way makes more sense.

The salary cap per minute is about £3.09. Oh, c'mon! It took me less than a minute to work it out.



Vitch makes a valid point, but that only works if you're signing a player longish term... and only matters if you're struggling to manage the cap short-term... and comes with longer-term implications.

It'd be a bit of a joke if a team bumped along in mid-table spending well under the cap, then midway through the season (which is more than midway through the year), suddenly brought in half a 3 or 4 top earners on short-term deals to smash through the play-offs. Just like when Bradford got grief for signing Morley, under the old system in 2005, actually.

Somebody call the Fat Controller....this thread has been derailed!!

Nope. Once a player leaves and joins another club his wages from that point on stop counting.

It's been designed to try and cover every available fiddle that a club might come up with. Maybe if the clubs could be trusted more it would be simpler.

So the club the player leaves doesn't have to count the full seasons wages but the club he joins does? That makes no sense.

Correct. This is the only way around things, and it's perfectly valid as long as it's written into his contract at the point he's signed.

cant you guys start another thread? salary cap one? right back on track, so who we signing today?

There's a distinct lack of bald players in Superleague.

The RFL should launch an investigation into this ASAP, it's blatant baldism that's rife within the clubs.

I read the other day about a policy Castleford have when signing youg players. They make the young player turn up with their dad, bringing along their birth certificate & dads ID. Once they confirm that it is actually ther dad, they then assess the head of the dad for baldness. If their assessment shows the dad is folically challenged, no contract for the young un. It's disgusting.

You're mixing together cap-space and wages, I think.

If the cap is £1.6m and...

Joe Bloggs earns £100k p/a. He moves clubs midway through the season and his wage is unchanged. Both his old club and his new [iwere[/i spending £1.5m p/a. His new club is now at full cap, even though he won't earn £100k during the rest of [ithis[/i season - the cap they weren't spending earlier in the year is 'lost'.
His new club's cap spend falls to £1.4m. They could now sign a player on a deal worth £200k [ia year[/i, but they can't pay a player £200k [ithis year[/i.

I'll shut-up about it now!

thank you

What you on about now....Sterling had long hair when he played for us...he was the best i have seen for 1 SEASON but best overall is Norton and he was folically challenged.

Sterlo is as bald as a coot.

Norton was indeed bald. It's a pity that if Norton was around these days, that he wouldn't get a chance due to the baldism within Rugby League.

Mark Calderwood went bald = no contract from Hull. Disgusting.

I don't think that's correct. Joe Bloggs would be on 50k at the new club for that season and the old club would now have an additional 50k spare on the cap to use how they see fit.

I think you're seeing it the same way I was saying. Poorly explained, but the right way to do things if it actually is like that.

Sterlo is Bald now but wasnt then.Anyway 6 signings and 2 to complete....who the hell is the half-back? The prop is from Catalans?