: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:57 pm  

i agree that it would boost interest in the sport but i don't think that interest isn't sutainable without the foundations being set properly

rl spent years poaching the top players from ru but, years after, it still finds itself in a very lowly position when it comes to interest from the general public

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:06 pm  

tino wrote:

need to increase the fanbase before that happens, football players get paid that much because they draw 30000 a week each paying £20 or more

In football it's more to do with the massive deals with SKY and such over TV rights.

This accounts for more than gate receipts.

Football is just a bigger sport in every aspect and always will be in our lifetimes.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:18 pm  

tino wrote:

need to increase the fanbase before that happens, football players get paid that much because they draw 30000 a week each paying £20 or more

which would pay for half the team, what about the other half?

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:27 pm  

dixie wrote:

In football it's more to do with the massive deals with SKY and such over TV rights.

This accounts for more than gate receipts.

Football is just a bigger sport in every aspect and always will be in our lifetimes.

and why do tv rights bring in loads of money? because lots of people want to watch the tv when football is on! same can't be said for rl

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:31 pm  

tino wrote:

and why do tv rights bring in loads of money? because lots of people want to watch the tv when football is on! same can't be said for rl

not entirely accurate.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:08 pm  

Herb Narvo wrote:

I would suggest that Gatcliffe is willing to put his voice behind the debate as Warrington have nothing to fear from the enquiry. We may well have to pay some money to the Inland Revenue but at least we can source that from our backer in the form of an interest free loan at very short notice. I would be interested to see how Bradford could raise cash from the money market in the current economic climate.

There will be plenty of clubs sweating a lot heavier about this than Warrington will be. Worse case scenario is that King and Monaghan choose to accept an early contract release and the way those signings have turned out lets be honest it could be a blessing in disguise.

You seem to be the only guy on here shooting the messenger. Your prerogative, I guess. The issue of being able to fund paying any back-taxes and penalties would likely be of little consequence to Warrington with your wealthy backer, and I said as much earlier. Its ancillary to the issue at hand, and I can't see why you would make a big deal of it or seek to compare with Bradford - how is that relevant? If you want to use it as an excuse to gloat about you having a a wealthy backer and Bradford not, then that's up to you. I never sought to draw any such comparisons.

FWIW, I don't expect the issue of raising money for substantial back taxes and penalties to arise at Bradford, although I cannot confirm this for certain, so I believe your question is probably academic anyway.

As I keep saying, I have visited quite a few club MBs and the MB on TotalRl to try and help people better understand what all this is about - given how hopeless the media hacks are at getting to grips with it.

: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:00 am  

Herb Narvo wrote:

Wigan certainly did pay their players this way. They just didn't declare it until caught out - does the phrase "deliberately and systematically cheating the salary cap" mean anything to you?


This is like the annual "Warrington has broke the salary cap week" we use to have every year until the truth came out and it was Wigan, Bradford and St Helens who had broke it as usual.

I would suggest that Gatcliffe is willing to put his voice behind the debate as Warrington have nothing to fear from the enquiry. We may well have to pay some money to the Inland Revenue but at least we can source that from our backer in the form of an interest free loan at very short notice. I would be interested to see how Bradford could raise cash from the money market in the current economic climate.

There will be plenty of clubs sweating a lot heavier about this than Warrington will be. Worse case scenario is that King and Monaghan choose to accept an early contract release and the way those signings have turned out lets be honest it could be a blessing in disguise.

See bold. Wigan most certainly didn't pay their players this way. Whelan copped some criticism for refusing to. The 'spirit of the cap' you refer to was renegotiating the contracts to defer payments into a later period of the contract. One of the major objections that Wigan raised during that hearing was that is was an 'open secret' that certain other clubs were using this method to 'break the spirit of the cap' yet weren't being punished. This was the first public outing of the now famous 'flying over Singapore' payments. Wigan (and Bradford) were made to look like cheats when other clubs, yourselves included, were simply using a different method to get around the cap...one that is now seen to be not only against the 'spirit of the cap', but much more serious, against the law of the land.

: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:21 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

See bold. Wigan most certainly didn't pay their players this way. Whelan copped some criticism for refusing to. The 'spirit of the cap' you refer to was renegotiating the contracts to defer payments into a later period of the contract. One of the major objections that Wigan raised during that hearing was that is was an 'open secret' that certain other clubs were using this method to 'break the spirit of the cap' yet weren't being punished. This was the first public outing of the now famous 'flying over Singapore' payments. Wigan (and Bradford) were made to look like cheats when other clubs, yourselves included, were simply using a different method to get around the cap...one that is now seen to be not only against the 'spirit of the cap', but much more serious, against the law of the land.

Look Phuzzy your memory seems to be getting rather fuzzy.

The year Wigan got a big fine for "deliberately and systematically cheating the salary cap" was the year before you're talking about. I can acknowledge that being a Wigan fan there are so many breaches you may having problems differentiating between them. The one you are talking about is when Wigan threatened the RFL with a massive legal bill if they enforced the rules as all the Super League teams agreed they would be at the start of the year.

: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:43 am  

Re Bradford: for the avoidance of doubt - especially to this strangely-aggressive Herb Narvo character:

1. Bradford "as usual"? Bradford broke the cap once. It affected a second year because by the time the SC audit for the first year had been completed and the principal causative issues raised, it was far too late to be able to fix an ongoing one for the second year. That was one of the main reasons the clubs introduced a real-time salary cap. The breaches were less than 4%.

2. Bradford's breach was down to three things IIRC. One was minor and not by itself an issue. The second was an assumption that the NZRL's insurance would pay Hape's salary while he was injured on international duty (seems they never did, at least not in the time frame, and there has been very bad blood between Bradford and the NZRL ever since). The club believed they were entitled to receive this, and had based their squad funding for the year on that basis. The third one was over...guess what...image rights.

3. The image rights issue that arose deserves further examination, as it probably affects most clubs. Very probably including yours. This from memory, although happy for anyone knowing more to improve or amend. Apparently, Harris assigned his image rights to ( I think it was) Tetleys, for a reasonably modest sum. That being a commercial arrangement with an independent third party meant that whatever he (or his PSC) received from that was not subject to the cap. Same as when he played for Leeds and there was a much bigger image rights deal from Tissot, and presumably same as Scully with Gillette, for example. And I understand this approach is common across the game, no doubt including over your way. Where the mistake came was that Tetleys placed a single £750 (IIRC) ad in a programme. That turned them into a club sponsor under the rules, and THAT meant that the Tetleys payment to Harris fell under the cap for the year and thereafter. And that did it. One accidental advert, which some marketing troop accepted without understanding the implications.

The RFL stated quite clearly that there had been no deliberate attempt to break the cap or to mislead, the club cooperated fully, and they acknowledged that Bradford's breaches were accidental. That was why the RFL levied low fines, suspended most of them and mitigated the points deduction as far as was allowed.

All the above posted in the interests of avoiding misinformation.

These points should also help show how easy it was to accidentally exceed the cap - especially when club genuinely believed one thing, which subsequently transpired not to be so. Something people should bear in mind when speculating on the current (image rights) issues too.

Sorry to take up space on your board over a largely parochial issue, but I did think the issue needed heading off.

: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:50 am  

Herb Narvo wrote:

Look Phuzzy your memory seems to be getting rather fuzzy.

The year Wigan got a big fine for "deliberately and systematically cheating the salary cap" was the year before you're talking about. I can acknowledge that being a Wigan fan there are so many breaches you may having problems differentiating between them. The one you are talking about is when Wigan threatened the RFL with a massive legal bill if they enforced the rules as all the Super League teams agreed they would be at the start of the year.

Think you will find that was going over the cap it was not hidden and the club never appealed against the decisions the only one they did appeal was the not in the spirit of the cap one which was deferred payments and there was no rule at the time to say they could not do this. Other clubs have broken the spirit of the cap with the flying over Singapore payments as again there was no rule in the RFL to say they could not do this so should we expect any clubs that have done this to get a fine from the RFL and points deducted this season in retrospect of how many seasons they have done it for. Think if memory serves me right we got 4 points docked so if a club has done this for 3 seasons shall we say should they get 12 points docked this season?? I am not saying Warrington or any other club has done this but if they have the punishment by the RFL should be the same for all clubs breaking the spirit of the cap shouldn't it. I for one think the cap should be 50% of turnover up to a maximum of 2 and a half Million pounds this would encourage clubs to try and make more money and promote the game better. Rant over