Mr Churchill wrote:
But, agreed. This week's announcement begs many more questions than answers. For what period does 'relevant income' apply as regards 50% & of it being the 2016 season cap? eg Year to 31 Dec 2014? Year to 31 Dec 2015? Year to 30 Nov 2015? or what? How do clubs provide evidence? Audited accounts, or not?
Wasn't is precisely those questions that were a major factor in moving to a flat rate cap in SL? Clubs had to be audited
after the event to see how much they had earned to check if they had bust the cap or not.
So clubs spent whatever on players and when it was found to be too much
the trophies were in the bag already.
Wigan were always where the controversy was re the cap when it was like this but if you look back Saints bust it nearly every year when they were audited.
Another argument against the 50% cap was it let rich clubs outstrip poorer clubs. So Wigan and Leeds cold spend more on players than the rest. If that was a valid argument back then, why does it not apply to Leigh and whichever other club is wealthy enough to exploit this?
Finally depending on what "club relevant income" is, why is it not possible for Championship side to now exceed the salary cap of a SL side? Amass £5m of club relevant income from a rich backer and there you have £2.5m to spend on players.
Good luck to any club that attracts that sort of investment but if it is possible to do this, it takes us back to the era when the salary cap was in fact 50% of income. There must be a limit to stop this surely? Or are the RFL really that stupid as to not foresee that could in fact happen?