Joined: Mar 09 2004 Posts: 33944 Location: watching out for low flying geese
bren2k wrote:If it's good enough for Starbore and SmokeyTA, it must be good enough for you; I'm sure at one point in the thread, the former made at least 5 consecutive posts in reply to himself. Bonkers!
Ooooooh no I didn't
kcab sfrawdder
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done But he with a chuckle replied That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried. So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
SmokeyTA wrote:Not in SL they didnt, they didnt even spend close to the SL Salary Cap yet went bust. The salary Cap doesnt stop clubs going bust. Wakefield had many many problems, all of which were predictable, and Widnes spent more than they had to try and gain promotion, but did it in an SC era.
It doesn't stop it but it does make it less likely. Crusaders went bust the first time round because they were already in debt and accumulating CCJs before they joined SL. That's despite the RFL describing them as "financially stable" in their licensing decision. Had they not entered SL with debts, they might not have gone bust.
They had these debts partly because the RFL was turning a blind eye to them breaking the salary cap by importing Queensland league players on full-time contracts whilst in NL2. Had they not been doing this, it is unlikely that they would have been promoted to NL1 and thus been in a position to apply for SL.
Quote:I dont disagree, if they dont have it, they dont spend it. If they do have it, they can spend it. If Northampton cant afford to spend £366k (the Championship Salary cap plus an allowance) they shouldnt spend it, if they cant afford to spend £300k (the championship Salary Cap) they shouldnt spend it.
Yes, the worst aspect of the salary cap was removing the restriction on %age of turnover thus allowing everybody to spend the full cap. Some clubs can afford the full cap and others can't but will spend it anyway.
Wheels wrote:Would it be ok for Northampton to play to the same salary cap as everyone else, then have players travel/living expenses (up to a certain amount) excluded from their overall balance?
This could be for the first 3 seasons to help get them running, then get them on the same cap as everyone else.
It would be fine by me if they actually had the money to do this and not run up debts. My issue is that a blanket "salary cap restrictions should not apply to expansion clubs" is a) unfair (although I do agree about the player availability and travelling costs which perhaps should be taken into account) b) madness if the expansion clubs don't have the money (and they usually don't).
Wheels wrote:Would it be ok for Northampton to play to the same salary cap as everyone else, then have players travel/living expenses (up to a certain amount) excluded from their overall balance?
This could be for the first 3 seasons to help get them running, then get them on the same cap as everyone else.
It would be fine by me if they actually had the money to do this and not run up debts. My issue is that a blanket "salary cap restrictions should not apply to expansion clubs" is a) unfair (although I do agree about the player availability and travelling costs which perhaps should be taken into account) b) madness if the expansion clubs don't have the money (and they usually don't).
It's a dead-duck argument, as the expansion clubs aren't getting a different salary cap, and all teams will get the same central funding and travel costs over a set distance paid.
Wheels wrote:Would it be ok for Northampton to play to the same salary cap as everyone else, then have players travel/living expenses (up to a certain amount) excluded from their overall balance?
This could be for the first 3 seasons to help get them running, then get them on the same cap as everyone else.
It would be fine by me if they actually had the money to do this and not run up debts. My issue is that a blanket "salary cap restrictions should not apply to expansion clubs" is a) unfair (although I do agree about the player availability and travelling costs which perhaps should be taken into account) b) madness if the expansion clubs don't have the money (and they usually don't).
It's a dead-duck argument, as the expansion clubs aren't getting a different salary cap, and all teams will get the same central funding and travel costs over a set distance paid.
We're arguing about what "ought to be" not "what is".
Although I'd point out that Crusaders were breaching the SC as an NL club.
Times passed since the interview but he did clearly mention about going to SL. No mention of fast tracking or anything, just they hoped they could be in SL in a couple of years
Starbug wrote:
Wellsy13 wrote:They never said they wanted to be in SL within a couple of years. The interview with the chairman is on the BBC website. They'd like to be in SL one day, but it's long term.
As I said , reading ' come on you Wolves ' post sounded like they had mentioned SL in. Couple of years , even the most ardent ' Expansion at all cost ' exponent should be horrified to hear something like that after recent events
So if he was wrong , then I apologise , and wish the Nothampton project all the best
Hedgehog King wrote: It might have done, had it been enforced.
They didnt spend it, so it made no difference.
I'm talking about pre-SL. The first Crusaders bankruptcy was supposedly due to debts run up chasing the SL dream. Crusaders clearly were breaking the NL salary cap even if they never got anywhere near the SL salary cap.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 382 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
