Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Transfers rumours
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 918523" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>As far as I'm aware, they could do that (would require proof that it's not a clause from the existing contract though), but... why would Maligan agree to be paid less when he immediately becomes more important?</p><p></p><p>Far more likely to be the other way around "Whilst were at a lower level, with smaller crowds, smaller advertising revenue and no TV money, we can o ly afford to pay you £XXX; but if we gain promotion, you'll be kept on for £YYY with Y>X.</p><p>Which would almost certainly be a clause in the existing contract, and therefore smoothed for purposes of the cap.</p><p></p><p>Neither of your work-arounds for the cap are actual work-arounds for the cap BTW. ANY payment from ANYONE related to the club to ANYONE related to the player count as cap. That sort of thing was rice in the amateur era, but specifically regulated against for at least a decade now.</p><p>The only work-around I'm aware of is to keep that sort of payment outside of the country, as PRL have access to tax-records.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 918523, member: 73592"] As far as I'm aware, they could do that (would require proof that it's not a clause from the existing contract though), but... why would Maligan agree to be paid less when he immediately becomes more important? Far more likely to be the other way around "Whilst were at a lower level, with smaller crowds, smaller advertising revenue and no TV money, we can o ly afford to pay you £XXX; but if we gain promotion, you'll be kept on for £YYY with Y>X. Which would almost certainly be a clause in the existing contract, and therefore smoothed for purposes of the cap. Neither of your work-arounds for the cap are actual work-arounds for the cap BTW. ANY payment from ANYONE related to the club to ANYONE related to the player count as cap. That sort of thing was rice in the amateur era, but specifically regulated against for at least a decade now. The only work-around I'm aware of is to keep that sort of payment outside of the country, as PRL have access to tax-records. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Transfers rumours
Top