Elecrical engineering or something like that

Quote ="Bonita Red" The best way to deal with this is to let your highest paid player,or two perhaps,be exempt from the cap. The other players would be in the same position as they are ">now.'" Would the 'other players' agents view it this way? In their eyes each club would then have potentially an extra say £150,000 to £300,000 available to spend on the cap and this could lead to agents trying to get their mitts on some it when their players contracts are up for renewal. By keeping the elite player status private the agents would be left guessing if a club has extra money to spend under the cap. Quote ="TheButcher"Think he was meaning 'What are the criteria for a player to be labelled Elite? How do you measure a players ability to give them a label? Are they simply good or great? And one man's villain is another's hero. People constantly disagree on players ability from Chairmen to the terraces.' How do you make that decision?'" I mentioned some criteria in a previous post.

Quote ="Bonita Red" The best way to deal with this is to let your highest paid player,or two perhaps,be exempt from the cap. The other players would be in the same position as they are ">now.'" Would the 'other players' agents view it this way? In their eyes each club would then have potentially an extra say £150,000 to £300,000 available to spend on the cap and this could lead to agents trying to get their mitts on some it when their players contracts are up for renewal. By keeping the elite player status private the agents would be left guessing if a club has extra money to spend under the cap. Quote ="TheButcher"Think he was meaning 'What are the criteria for a player to be labelled Elite? How do you measure a players ability to give them a label? Are they simply good or great? And one man's villain is another's hero. People constantly disagree on players ability from Chairmen to the terraces.' How do you make that decision?'" I mentioned some criteria in a previous post.

That's what I was saying,just allow the Clubs finance people to exclude the two top earners.

No one will know who they are,any more than they do at the moment,but money will always come out in the dressing room

Quote ="Bonita Red"That's what I was saying,just allow the Clubs finance people to exclude the two top earners. No one will know who they are,any more than they do at the moment,but money will always come out in the dressing room'" I'm with you now. This way you wouldn't need an RFL panel to determine if a player qualifies or not. Even better idea. icon_thumb.gif" alt="icon_thumb.gif" title="Thumbs up" />

Quote ="Bonita Red"That's what I was saying,just allow the Clubs finance people to exclude the two top earners. No one will know who they are,any more than they do at the moment,but money will always come out in the dressing room'" I'm with you now. This way you wouldn't need an RFL panel to determine if a player qualifies or not. Even better idea. icon_thumb.gif" alt="icon_thumb.gif" title="Thumbs up" />

Sorry about using the term gift earlier on. I know it's not a financially accurate description. But a financial gift would be a debt converted to shares in the case of a sports club.



The debt is not held against the club and so a capital injection of £1million each year, converted into shares to fund the extra player money needed is for all intents and purposes a gift of £1million as the club will never have to repay it. Only a new owner would need to buy the shares and they would pay the going rate for those.



That is what I meant by a gift.





The alternative is a loan from the Dr. which would require Salford to grow it's revenue. Whilst not impossible. My point was Salford where struggling to repay loans when spending at below cap level. The revenue increases would need to be huge to repay loans not just at cap level, but at an increased cap level.



Anyway back to the cap. I would prefer a break even rule. You get a 3 year licence, so over the course of that licence there is a 3 year break even rule. You could bust the bank in year 1 to invest in the squad, so long as you could get to break over the full 3 years.



Failure to do so would be so many points off your next licence application.



That way the good Dr. could offer every play from Tomkins to Cameron Smith £1m each to play for Salford in 2014. They may just be 1 year contracts to give him that boost, but then so long as he could break even by the end of the licence that would be fine.



It does not put a cap on player wages, the club can pay out as much as it can afford. But it also adds protection against going bust as the club has to break even.

Quote ="bewareshadows" Anyway back to the cap. I would prefer a break even rule. You get a 3 year licence, so over the course of that licence there is a 3 year break even rule. You could bust the bank in year 1 to invest in the squad, so long as you could get to break over the full 3 years. Failure to do so would be so many points off your next licence application. That way the good Dr. could offer every play from Tomkins to Cameron Smith £1m each to play for Salford in 2014. They may just be 1 year contracts to give him that boost, but then so long as he could break even by the end of the licence that would be fine. It does not put a cap on player wages, the club can pay out as much as it can afford. But it also adds protection against going bust as the club has to break ">even.'" In response Mr Shadows, are you really advocating that if the cap is increased to £2.1m that a club can spend £6.3m in Year 1 and recoup £4.2m in years 2 and 3, "break even" as you put it? A massive gamble surely and certainly not one that "adds protection against going bust" if anything surely the opposite would be true? Unless your club of course has a serious investor prepared to bankroll the club in any event and then it's not really a unilateral rule change that could be effected across the sport.

Quote ="bewareshadows" Anyway back to the cap. I would prefer a break even rule. You get a 3 year licence, so over the course of that licence there is a 3 year break even rule. You could bust the bank in year 1 to invest in the squad, so long as you could get to break over the full 3 years. Failure to do so would be so many points off your next licence application. That way the good Dr. could offer every play from Tomkins to Cameron Smith £1m each to play for Salford in 2014. They may just be 1 year contracts to give him that boost, but then so long as he could break even by the end of the licence that would be fine. It does not put a cap on player wages, the club can pay out as much as it can afford. But it also adds protection against going bust as the club has to break ">even.'" In response Mr Shadows, are you really advocating that if the cap is increased to £2.1m that a club can spend £6.3m in Year 1 and recoup £4.2m in years 2 and 3, "break even" as you put it? A massive gamble surely and certainly not one that "adds protection against going bust" if anything surely the opposite would be true? Unless your club of course has a serious investor prepared to bankroll the club in any event and then it's not really a unilateral rule change that could be effected across the sport.