like Paul Sculthorpe & Gillette, Iestyn Harris & Reebok (Leeds), Iestyn Harris at Bradford (although not the best example, due to incompentance at the Bulls) amongst many others??



If the player has a high enough profile and the club has good commercial sense they can make it happen without breaking the rules.

it is the fundemental difference





Im suggesting an RL player can't. He cant go somewhere else and and be an RL player for more money because all the clubs are under the same salary restrictions.



And it isnt market forces at work because the SC stops that happening. Saying he can go to other sports or to australia is irrelevant. the SC is a fundemental restriction on a player earning his worth as an RL player in this country.



a Civil servant has the opportunity to go into the private sector and do the same job for money. It would be the equivalent of an RL player moving from one RL club to another NOT as you seem to be equating it a move from RL to RU.



The Current rules would equate to a secretary's earnings working for Vodafone being limited to what BT can spend on their Secretaries. And your justification would be to say its OK, this secretary could leave and be a plumber or move to Australia.

Yes. Like two people. One of which wasnt allowed. Its obviously not a very successful scheme is it

I'm sorry but this simply illustrates how some opponents of a salary cap, particularly some on the Wigan board, do not merely disagree with the argument of many who support the idea of a cap (which would be fair enough) they don't even understand the argument.



Pegging the salary of all mobile phone company secretaries to the same level is simply not the same. You would say that that would hold back a particularly successful company; you would be right. However most who support the idea of cap do not simply look at the competition between individual RL clubs rather the much wider issue of the competition between RL generally and other sports in particular and other leisure activities generally.



A salary cap system at least has the potential to promote competition. Without competition there would be a significant reduction is TV rights payments, sponsorship payments and gate receipts(as the payers would look to spend their money elsewhere). How would the players be paid then?

So one club cannot offer more than another? A club may not be able to offer a multi million pound salary, but who could afford to do that anyway? No RL club in this country could, cap or not.







No it isn't, a civil servant could not do the same job in the private sector, they could be 'an office worker' but then an RL player could be 'a sportsperson'







What? That's bizarre even for you.

whilst clubs working together for the benefit of the game is undoubtedly a good thing, to pretend the clubs arent in competition with each other, then claiming without the competition between the clubs the sport is screwed is very very strange

If the cap isnt restricting the amount players are being paid then it is pointless and worthless and cant be a salary cap.



of course they can. A Project manager in the civil service can be a project manager in the Private Sector, An IT director in the civil service can be an IT director in the private sector. Why would you think they wouldnt or why would you think they only be classed as 'office workers'



it seemed fairly simple. Im surprised it went over your head. You are saying an RL player can seek his worth as an RL player outside the Salary Cap by either not being an RL player or moving to Australia. This would be the same as saying a secretary can seek their worth only by changing professions or moving to Australia.



To put it another way, I certainly wouldnt accept it, if at my next payment review the company i worked for decided to freeze or lower my pay on the basis that they had agreed with every other company who could offer me a similar position that they were going to keep wages down. And i certainly wouldnt accept a justification of, [iwell you could ignore the training and qualifications you spend years getting and go start out in a new role or move to another country[/i

It restricts the total amount a club can pay, it does not impose a set limit on an individuals salary. Every company has a set wage budget that it will not go over, that is not regarded as a cap on an individuals ability to earn a salary, yet because there is a well publicised limit in RL it is?







The majority of people in the civil service are not employed in such specialised roles.







It would be if the only people who employed secretaries in the world were based in England and Australia. You are attempting to compare a job which has a very limited worldwide presence to a job that is widespread with a much larger number of employers.



An RL player can only ply his trade as an RL player within England, France (part time or within the English game) or Australia. That is a pretty much it, I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of that.







If a company stated that you weren't going to get a pay rise because they had reached the limit of their pay budget, I'm sure they'd be quite happy for you to try and find alternative employment wherever you wished if you didn't like it. If you were employed in a role that only had positions in England or Australia, and you didn't accept an offer from another employer in the UK, then you'd have to 'go start out in a new role or move to another country', whether you accepted that justification or not.

No, every company has a budget which they set themselves. Not an arbitrary amount set by an outside body





well if they were office juniors then they could go elsewhere to be an office junior. There are very few jobs which are solely civil service with no equivalent private sector opportunity



Dont be silly. That clearly isnt the point being made and only a fool would think they could convince people it was.



It doesnt matter where else in the world a secretary can go work. It doesnt alter the fact their employment here is restricted.

No, i wouldnt. I would have legal right to redress as what they would be doing would be illegal. The company i work for, cannot operate as a cartel and restrict my right to seek my worth with another company. Which is what the SC does.



If a club reaches its budget and decideds not to spend anymore - fine. When that budget is then applied to another company, restricting them in offering the market worth to a prospective employee - It isnt.



However much you try to equate them, The SC and a clubs budget isnt the same. The SC is a restriction imposed on the clubs, and it isnt a gentlemans agreement-it is an enforceable rule under the terms in which the clubs are forced to operate.



In any other industry this cap would be ruled illegal immediately-there would barely be an argument. However there is provision for sport to be treated differently. The only question would be whether or not those provisions reach that far to protect the clubs

The point still stands that an individual can be paid whatever the club thinks they are worth within that budget, there is not a cap on an individuals pay bar that of the clubs budget for wages.









I'm going to end this one here, it has progressed to a point that has nothing to do with the discussion.







You brought it up. Why do so if it wasn't the point being made?







Again, that is an point you brought up.







They aren't. If your company offers you £100k and you don't want it, then there is nothign to stop another club offering anything above that within their pay structure. If a club wanted to pay a player £1.5 million and the rest of the squad £100k between them, they could. Nothing in the rules stop them doing that. Your worth is what the employers say you are worth, not what you think you are worth.







Again, nothing stops a club offering what it thinks that players market worth is.







The salary cap gives a club a wage budget to work with, but isn't a clubs wage budget?







Any other industry wouldn't need such strict regulations to join it. I couldn't decide to create a team and play professional RL tomorrow. Is that a restriction of trade? It is more a restriction than the cap is.

there is, its called the salary cap. By the very definition of its name, it is a Cap on Salaries. The fact this Cap treats players salaries as a whole rather than singularly is irrelevant. It still caps what players can earn, both individually and collectively



only because of your pedantry



I didnt, it was simply part of an example where you chose to focus on the pedantry rather than the point being made



yes, i did. I said it. I said that a secretary can go to another country but this doesnt affect the fact their employment would be restricted here. I did make that point

yes, and the Salary Cap stops this worth being found. There is nothing to stop a club (or all clubs) simply operating to a budget of £1.65m. The problem is the fact they operating together to do so. This stops them paying players what they think they are worth on the open market. The Salary Cap not only restricts a players earning potential individually but collectively.



And you seem to be missing the obvious point that if a club already has £1.5m in contracts, it then limits a players earnings to £150k. And if the club has spent £1.65m it restricts a players ability to ply his trade at all. Remember the problem here isnt a club not wishing to pay more than this. It is the clubs operating as a cartel to stop anyone paying more than this



except the Salary Cap. Which it doesnt surprise anyone but you is a cap on salary.



no, it is an arbitrary cap.

you can create a pro team and play professional RL tomorrow simply not in Super League. There is nothing to stop you setting up a new league and trading as that. Nothing to stop you inventing an RL team of your mates, paying them what you want and operating as an RL side. You might struggle to find someone to play against but no clubs are under an obligation to play you

Who is pretending that the clubs aren't in competition with each other?