Current Page: 1 of 3
The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: Bod (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 10:18

Two tier Premiership through "sharp" accounting and contracts


Why am I not at all surprised? I guess the clubs will always end up doing whatever they can "legally" get away with.

"The top clubs are said to be rushing to re-sign their elite players on long-term deals to "exploit a loophole" to avoid the £1.4 million reduction in the salary cap ahead of the introduction of the new regulations on Thursday. Sources claim a major split is emerging, with Bristol, Bath, Exeter, Saracens, Northampton, Sale and Harlequins said to have the financial strength to offer new deals – some as long as four years (two years plus the option for another two) – to their top players, that will effectively mean they avoid having to make cuts, as only 75 per cent of their salaries will count to the cap from 2021."




Keeping things topical :-

"Meanwhile, the Rugby Football Union is open to the possibility of players taking a knee when England next line up for the national -anthem."

What other political gestures would you like to see considered at HQ?


(Sm3)

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 11:09

"Meanwhile, the Rugby Football Union is open to the possibility of players taking a knee when England next line up for the national -anthem."

What other political gestures would you like to see considered at HQ?

None for the time being. That is a pretty good start if done meaningfully

Next would be some direct action. For example researching why there are so few black coaches in our game and identifying initiatives to address this

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: woodpecker (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 11:14

I was hoping that the clubs would have used this opportunity to reduce salaries not try to cheat again.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: woodpecker (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 11:18

Quote:
woodpecker
I was hoping that the clubs would have used this opportunity to reduce salaries not try to cheat again.

If the RFU has said that then that's tantamount to forcing them to do so.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: ouch!_that_hurts (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 11:40

"Taking a knee" during the national anthem being played before a NFL game in American Football - a sport played wholly within one country - is one thing.

Doing so while representing your country in an international match is another; not least because it is hypocritical - either you represent your country or you don't.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: SimonG19 (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 11:53

Quote:
ouch!_that_hurts
"Taking a knee" during the national anthem being played before a NFL game in American Football - a sport played wholly within one country - is one thing.
Doing so while representing your country in an international match is another; not least because it is hypocritical - either you represent your country or you don't.

Sadly that's not true because in rugby it is becoming increasingly common to represent someone else's country.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 11:57

Quote:
gaz59
"Meanwhile, the Rugby Football Union is open to the possibility of players taking a knee when England next line up for the national -anthem."
What other political gestures would you like to see considered at HQ?

None for the time being. That is a pretty good start if done meaningfully


Not sure I agree, its a hash and I'm confused by this, taking the knee implies you are protesting against our own National Anthem. I am disappointed, this could be on the other thread as well. Its not a statement from the RFU, its letting someone else comment on their behalf and frankly in an odd manner.

Liverpool did it but with no International anthem connection.



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 12:07

I don't know the answer to this but given the Black community is only 3% of the population I wonder how misrepresented they really are.

I would suggest that Asians are significantly less represented..........

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: P G Tips (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 12:08

On the question of the salaries, there is the complicating factor that reducing salaries of players already under contract could be legally challenged. As I understand it, the "loophole' being described is an allowance for management of this issue- perhaps one of our legally qualified posters can comment?

Clubs will therefore wish to avoid legal battles while still securing future services of their players.

The article does not say much that is new or revelatory. Unless clubs are centrally funded there will always be richer and poorer ones.The Cap and associated regulations are there to impose and police a fair pay policy to reduce the impact of financial differences.

PG

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: Optimist (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 12:13

Possibly needs a separate thread, but ...

"taking the knee implies you are protesting against our own National Anthem"

I really can't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Wherever 'taking a knee' originated and however it was originally designed to speak to the Star Spangled Banner, it has evolved into a symbol of unity with people of colour, and has little to do with the national anthem. I'd say it's perfectly possible to sing the national anthem and give it whatever respect you feel it is due whilst kneeling and providing a visible and powerful (more so because of your platform) expression of solidarity.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: Never In Doubt (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 12:21

Taking a knee is not a protest against an anthem it is an action to highlight a specific cause or protest. There is an uncomfortable attempt by conflating these two issues to portray people who take a knee as unpatriotic. A desire to reform your country is not unpatriotic.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 12:56

Quote:
Optimist
Possibly needs a separate thread, but ...
"taking the knee implies you are protesting against our own National Anthem"

I really can't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Wherever 'taking a knee' originated and however it was originally designed to speak to the Star Spangled Banner, it has evolved into a symbol of unity with people of colour, and has little to do with the national anthem. I'd say it's perfectly possible to sing the national anthem and give it whatever respect you feel it is due whilst kneeling and providing a visible and powerful (more so because of your platform) expression of solidarity.

I've responded to this on the BLM thread Opti.



https://i.ibb.co/gjWyP09/Unknown-1-2.jpg


Beno Obano Age 25 years, Loosehead prop, 5ft 8ins 18st 12lbs 'Mauls are like Transformers' they change form to become more powerful!

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: B4thB4ck (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 13:10

We should stand for and respect the anthems.

The players should take to the pitch for the match, not for gestures unless a minutes silence is appropriate beforehand which it could well be with fatal incidents. If they decide one is needed for BLM then I am happy for that to happen.

Let's not turn our national sports into a US aligned political theatre otherwise where do you draw the line with other protests that come along?

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 13:39

Quote:
gaz59
"Meanwhile, the Rugby Football Union is open to the possibility of players taking a knee when England next line up for the national -anthem."
What other political gestures would you like to see considered at HQ?

None for the time being. That is a pretty good start if done meaningfully

Next would be some direct action. For example researching why there are so few black coaches in our game and identifying initiatives to address this

None in this instance. This is an American thing.

As for representation, i like to think cream rises to the top so im not one for quotas for quotas sake.
If you need to hit a number, that could 'discriminate' against someone who had all the necessary qualities but were outside the quota number so that is a no for me.

I dont think people of a certain colour are held back anymore than anyone else...how granular do you want to get in the reasons someone doesn't get that position.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: Bod (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 14:01


Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 16:32

OK all I think we're getting heavily O/T. I think fine to speak about potential protests - but suggest you keep it to the BLM thread. This thread can continue on salary cap points. Ta.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 18:02

So...hold on. Did't the cap reduce from £6.4m to £5.0m, but now as they can tie people in and only claim 75 % the cap is effectively £6.66m if they don't sign anyone after Thursday, whilst the salaries have (permanently?) gone down by 25%? I'm no Carol Vorderman but something appears to be contrary there?



[Actively seeking a new adoptee: until I'm assigned one I'm going for Joshua Matavesi]

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 19:03

Quote:
P G Tips
On the question of the salaries, there is the complicating factor that reducing salaries of players already under contract could be legally challenged. As I understand it, the "loophole' being described is an allowance for management of this issue

I don't think I agree re it being for management of how to transition to a lower salary base. If that was the PRL members could have come out of the meeting with an agreement that said that every player currently under contract would have those contracts honoured but they would count 75% against the cap in the next two seasons when the cap was reduced.

Instead what they did was give themselves a nice fortnight window in which time presumably many new contracts were negotiated to take advanatge of the 75% value.

Bathmatt53 it's worse than that if I understand it correctly. If you sign up your whole squad for the next two seasons now working against the current £7M cap (with all allowances) plus 2 marquees then whether you pay them their full salary or 75% it will be counted as 75% for the next two seasons, so £5.25M versus the £6M cap (with all allowances for the next season)

If I understand that right you could actually add 750Ks worth of "new" players to your squad for the next two seasons and still be in cap for an effective real-world cap of £7.75M ... surely that can't be right??
That means a

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: dcsh (IP Logged)
Date: 16 June, 2020 19:06

The date the contracts need to be in place to only count 75% should have been the date that the decision to reduce the cap was made or even the day before. That way people wouldn’t have the opportunity to exploit the loophole. I can see the point of having an exemption for pre-existing contracts, as it reduces the legal fallout of trying to unilaterally change a contract that has already come into force to fit the reduced cap.

Re: The Salary Cap loophole #97
Posted by: Rich. (IP Logged)
Date: 17 June, 2020 07:06

I think it's a compromise not a loophole. It enables those clubs who didn't want the cap reduced to, in effect, avoid the cap reduction but allows those clubs who wanted it to be reduced to say to their squads that they need to reduce salaries from 2021 to fit with the new cap.

So in theory it helps players at some clubs to have a contact extension on better terms than would be possible without this clause. BUT the risk is that some players at the start of their career risk accepting a long term offer which in a few years (if they become as good as they can) might not reflect their worth.

But the way this clause was not made public from the start doesn't look good.

Current Page: 1 of 3
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net