Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:14 pm  

the hedonic calculator wrote:

If I was the owner of a club that had enjoyed some significant success in recent years, what I'd do is I'd offer players somewhat lower deals on their wages, staying significantly below the salary cap, with the promise of very rewarding incentives for those who play in winning games, and further lucrative rewards for those who play in more significant winning games such as play-offs and finals (having factored all this into the season's salary cap calculations).
Somebody should mention this idea to Mr Lenegan.

But why would the players take it? The overall net result can't exceed the salary cap so the players would be better off taking a guaranteed salary rather than part of the salary they would then have to make up with bonuses. A dip in form and they could be substantially worse off than if they were offered a full salary package. If they play to the best of their ability and earn all rewards they can only get the same payments as the salary cap can't be exceeded. What's the point?

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:21 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

But why would the players take it? The overall net result can't exceed the salary cap so the players would be better off taking a guaranteed salary rather than part of the salary they would then have to make up with bonuses. A dip in form and they could be substantially worse off than if they were offered a full salary package. If they play to the best of their ability and earn all rewards they can only get the same payments as the salary cap can't be exceeded. What's the point?

They would take it because they would feel secure in the fact that they are joining a successful team and so the cumulative winning bonus for each game would rival any deal they could get elsewhere before they even begin to take into consideration the extra money they could earn as a result of winning one of the two major finals. They would also know they would be joining a competitive set up where every player was working hard to improve their own performance (due partly to the financial dividends) and that the atmosphere at the club would be an aspirational one. It may be the case that some players are not attracted by this proposition and I would be quite happy with that. They're not the players I'd want at my club.

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:33 pm  

the hedonic calculator wrote:

They would take it because they would feel secure in the fact that they are joining a successful team and so the cumulative winning bonus for each game would rival any deal they could get elsewhere before they even begin to take into consideration the extra money they could earn as a result of winning one of the two major finals. They would also know they would be joining a competitive set up where every player was working hard to improve their own performance (due partly to the financial dividends) and that the atmosphere at the club would be an aspirational one. It may be the case that some players are not attracted by this proposition and I would be quite happy with that. They're not the players I'd want at my club.

Bradford will be "going cheap" soon, perhaps you can use your business acumen there. IL seems to be doing OK at the moment. Indeed, his whole business record does not look too shabby.

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:51 pm  

the hedonic calculator wrote:

They would take it because they would feel secure in the fact that they are joining a successful team and so the cumulative winning bonus for each game would rival any deal they could get elsewhere before they even begin to take into consideration the extra money they could earn as a result of winning one of the two major finals. They would also know they would be joining a competitive set up where every player was working hard to improve their own performance (due partly to the financial dividends) and that the atmosphere at the club would be an aspirational one. It may be the case that some players are not attracted by this proposition and I would be quite happy with that. They're not the players I'd want at my club.

So you're saying you want players to work harder for the same pay? In this short and very unpredictable career you wouldn't get many if any signing up for that. Pick up an injury and all of a sudden you can't pay your mortgage. For example if you offered an NRL import £40k with the ability to earn up to £60k in win bonuses then Saints offered them a flat guaranteed salary of £100k I have no doubt which one they would take. Regardless of the teams on field success.

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:52 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

But why would the players take it? The overall net result can't exceed the salary cap so the players would be better off taking a guaranteed salary rather than part of the salary they would then have to make up with bonuses. A dip in form and they could be substantially worse off than if they were offered a full salary package. If they play to the best of their ability and earn all rewards they can only get the same payments as the salary cap can't be exceeded. What's the point?

That depends. Shares of prize money don't count towards the salary cap, for example, and neither do international rep bonuses.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:32 pm  

Geoff wrote:

That depends. Shares of prize money don't count towards the salary cap, for example, and neither do international rep bonuses.

Which means they would be better off taking £80K contract and a share of the prize money rather than a £40K contract and a share of the prize money.

[Pemps]

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:36 pm  

the hedonic calculator wrote:

They would take it because they would feel secure in the fact that they are joining a successful team and so the cumulative winning bonus for each game would rival any deal they could get elsewhere before they even begin to take into consideration the extra money they could earn as a result of winning one of the two major finals. They would also know they would be joining a competitive set up where every player was working hard to improve their own performance (due partly to the financial dividends) and that the atmosphere at the club would be an aspirational one. It may be the case that some players are not attracted by this proposition and I would be quite happy with that. They're not the players I'd want at my club.

It's a job. As much as fans would like to see players playing for the badge, they've got a mortgage and bills to pay. There may be the odd player who would agree with your ideology but the majority wouldn't. I can't imagine Barrett, Hanley, Miles, Kenny... would have come to Wigan on a 'commission based' scheme.

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:44 am  

DaveO wrote:

Which means they would be better off taking £80K contract and a share of the prize money rather than a £40K contract and a share of the prize money.

Yeah, but I was meaning it as being an extra attraction of joining a club with realistic chance of silverware. Supposing, for example, both us and, say, Widnes could only offer £80k because of cap restrictions, the top clubs have the extra "carrot" of a better chance of prize money on top.

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:02 am  

think you will find it already happens, players who sign for the clubs who haven't been to Wembley or a Grand final recently actually ask for and get a higher salary than they would at a top club who do make the finals. It's the only way those clubs can attract a better quality of player. Do you think Kevin brown is going to Widnes for less than he gets at Huddersfield..????

Re: Rumours and signings v8 : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am  

Player swap plus large fee mentioned in the Guardian, regarding the Chase deal http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... sfeed=true

Player swap plus large fee mentioned in the Guardian, regarding the Chase deal http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... sfeed=true