Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:41 pm  

Standee wrote:

care to add any actual substance to that post?

as in why it's a no go?

It baffled me as Rovers must have upped the offer....mind you,the fact that rovers are offering crap deals is something....waste of time building that new stand isnt it.

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:43 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

They closed that loophole by not allowing registrations after a certain date IIRC. So are we now saying the salary cap is actually 133k a month rather than 1.6m a year?

Edit: what exactly is the point of the salary cap? Surely as long as a club doesn't spend more than 1.6M on wages over the course of a season that's all that matters?

I think it basically comes back to the Wigan relegation fiasco. Considering the year as a whole you can only ever address breaches in retrospect, after Wigan's efforts it became apparent that clubs may consider the gains to be worth the penalties and wilfully break the rules in some cases, so the focus was shifted to prevention rather than punishment. You can only do that with a live cap, which needs to be monitered monthly to work.

As Kosh said earlier, it boils down to the fact that the clubs cannot be trusted.

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:46 pm  

These aren't rumours.. these are salary cap discussions!

A friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend said he saw Benji Marshall at Humberside airport phoning for a taxi to the KC!

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:48 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

But why? How is that helping to either A) stop clubs spending above their means or B) encouraging a more level competition?

For why, see my other post. For A), it doesn't, but the scrappage of the 50% rule killed that anyway. For B), in theory, it means that every clubs' squad is of the same value throughout the course of the season, rather than being able to save a bit of money for 7 months, scrape into 7/8th, then spend a shedload on a handful of quality players for the playoffs and win the title.

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:49 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

I think it basically comes back to the Wigan relegation fiasco. Considering the year as a whole you can only ever address breaches in retrospect, after Wigan's efforts it became apparent that clubs may consider the gains to be worth the penalties and wilfully break the rules in some cases, so the focus was shifted to prevention rather than punishment. You can only do that with a live cap, which needs to be monitered monthly to work.

As Kosh said earlier, it boils down to the fact that the clubs cannot be trusted.

I get all of that but what is the reasoning for a gradually reducing salary cap as the year goes on? A club that holds back say 60k cap space is actually only holding back 5k a month. What if they have a bad spell of injuries and need to bring in 2 or 3 loan signings for a couple of months and the total spend it 20k but 10k each month? They have broken the monthly cap but not the total cap for the year. What exactly is this rule achieving?

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:53 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

For why, see my other post. For A), it doesn't, but the scrappage of the 50% rule killed that anyway. For B), in theory, it means that every clubs' squad is of the same value throughout the course of the season, rather than being able to save a bit of money for 7 months, scrape into 7/8th, then spend a shedload on a handful of quality players for the playoffs and win the title.

The deadline for signing players has stopped that anyway. Even if you do sign top quality players in the latter stages of the season you still have to pay them a substantial wage in the following seasons so it would only work once.

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:59 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

I get all of that but what is the reasoning for a gradually reducing salary cap as the year goes on? A club that holds back say 60k cap space is actually only holding back 5k a month. What if they have a bad spell of injuries and need to bring in 2 or 3 loan signings for a couple of months and the total spend it 20k but 10k each month? They have broken the monthly cap but not the total cap for the year. What exactly is this rule achieving?

I suppose hopefully it means promoting more youngsters, as any with few appearances in previous seasons are cap exempt aren't they? Makes clubs have to be more responsible for producing young players who are near to stepping up rather than being able to fall back on other clubs who do do things the right way doing it for them. In all honesty we've become one of the most guilty of this, so I kind of welcome that by-product of the method.

I'm not saying it's an ideal system, I can just understand why it's in place and can't personally think of a better alternative.

And it's not a gradually reducing cap, it's simply choosing not to spend all of it.

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:01 pm  

I had heard we've also pulled out the McDonnell deal, hope so not keen on him

[Kosh]

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:14 pm  

OK - That's enough about the ins and outs of the SC. It started out as relevant to our rumoured signing targets but has gone way past that now.

Cheers.

Re: Rumours Ad Infinitum : Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:15 pm  

Kosh wrote:

OK - That's enough about the ins and outs of the SC. It started out as relevant to our rumoured signing targets but has gone way past that now.

Cheers.

You could have let me keep my wonderful thread