I think he has so far. The job is just beyond him, there's only one man for this job and he goes by the name of Brian.

Brian Potter?



Would probably do better.

Yes, Brian Potter, no, really.

It's a pity Brian Clough isn't around any more

Indeed it would. Profoundly so. And the wage bill that goes through the books and the salary cap process probably is, since all those clubs are saying they are spending the salary cap. And yet those clubs clearly have far superior (and therefore more expensive, you would assume?) squads than us. I am sure that third party-paid image rights have a lot to do with it - indeed, we used that when we had players that could command good promotional values from third parties. Scully/Gillette was maybe the supreme recent example that we know of. It hardly seems right though in salary cap terms if a player can get a shedload for his image rights, and therefore play for a much lower salary than otherwise might be the case? Assuming of course that that speculative scenario actually happens... Even if the third party is truly unconnected with the club.



The other scenarios involve dishonourable (IMO) conduct, or worse, and so we can surely rule them out since surely no wealthy club owner would wish to be considered to be acting dishonourably?



None of the speculative scenarios I posed would be affected by the Rangers/HMRC issue. That was, as I understand it, primarily regarding the use of EBTs to save tax and therefore get more net pay to players for your salary cap bucks. Pearson at Hull just shelled out £1m to settle their EBT exposure. Bulls have stated we never used EBTS - although, like most other clubs, we ARE in the frame for [uclub-paid[/u image rights.



But the above scenarios all considered image rights and other payments made to, or on behalf of, players by "unconnected" third parties. No tax issues for the club, although there might just be issues elsewhere in some cases.

Don't think you need to go into conspiracy theories to show how some clubs can spend more money than others.



Prize money doesn't count on the cap so if you have a club that can expect to be successful and a player willing to take a risk on exactly how much prize money is in the pot then you have them paid x from from the cap and a percentage of any prize money each year.



Clubs with wealthy backers don't need the prize money for club costs as the backer covers these freeing up the prize money as player bonuses.



The cap may be the same for everyone but the actual funds available to pay players isn't and comes down to SL position and how far you get in the cup each season.

If you believe that prize money is the only differentiating factor, and can account for all the difference, that is up to you.



If you believe that clubs do not anyway pass on prize money to players, wealthy owner or not, that is up to you.



If you believe that, for example, Harris was paid every penny of his (substantial) package by the club, rather than by unconnected* third party Publico, that is up to you.



If you believe that other marquee players across the game do not receive image rights payments from third parties - or, if they DO, that it does not affect their playing package - that is up to you.



And that is just looking at the perfectly legal matter of third party-paid image rights.







* Until the RFL decided they WERE connected, hence the retrospective cap breach.

People are asking how can we have such a gulf in the quality of the two teams if we are spending the same salary cap. What I am saying is, that without stepping outside the rules and bringing "third party" payments or brown envelopes into it, the cap isn't equal anyway.



A team consistantly in the the top 4 and getting to semifinals in the cup has more bargaining power than us.



I didn't say the rest of it wasn't happening and yes funnily enough it is up to me what I think but thanks for reminding me!









The point is the amount of prize money isn't equal and a club with a backer can use all of it to pay players where other clubs may not be able to.







Is not what I said. I said its a reason, within the rules, for clubs to have different amounts available to pay players. As I've not been able to find out how much the prize money is and how steep the drop off is from 1st to last, I don't know how big an influence it would be. If anyone knows I'd be interested to hear it.

Adey, I have little doubt some top players are being paid a little extra than the amount in the salary cap. But I would think it a handful. I am struggling to think of any SL player I spot promoting anything, never mind the Scully level of Gillette promotion. If that is the case, are you suggesting it is possible they get paid it (image rights) for doing nothing - very dangerous for the player/club IMO? Even then, if one or two of the Tomkins types are getting this, what is it that attracts the other 13, or so, qulaity players to the particular club? The top 5 or 6 teams you could say have virtually every player is better than their Bulls (or London or whoever) counterparts in their respective positions. Some, such as Wire, virtually every player is/was an international. I do not believe every one of them is getting hidden payments. Ditto Leeds etc. So there must, IMO, be something in the playing for win bonuses/loyalty argument.

And you think it actually NEEDS a lot of players? Think again!



If - hypothetically - a club had on its books a couple of overseas marquee players who, say, could demand a net take-home income of £250k p.a (that is about AUD 370k), if a club paid them what it took to achieve that in pure salary (or cars or houses or whatever) those two players alone would use up £970k of the salary cap! £485k needed to get £250k net, from a back-of envelope calculation.



If, just say, both of those players' agents cut an image rights deal of £160k each, payable to their offshore personal service company, those payments could be made gross. Furtehrmore, since they were non-doms, they would not be liable to UK tax unless they received income fropm their companies AND it was remitted to the UK. The business paying for the image rights might even be totally unconnected with the club's owner, and not doing it as a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" job (you never know) and may even get good value for money out of it (I was told, for example, that Harris used to do promotional work for Publico two nights a week, but it was only what I was told).



Now, to get the players up to £250k net, the club NOW only has to pay a salary of £150k each.



Yes, that's right.



So the two mega-marquee players now cost only £300k in terms of the salary cap.



That frees up a massive £670k of salary cap!!!



Which sort of goes a long way towards paying all the OTHER players quite a lot more than could otherwise be the case. And you still get two marquee players.



Ok, the above is simplistic, and it assumes the player can keep the offshore funds free from Aus Tax when he gets home (Singapore Sling, anyone...?) but I hope it serves to demonstrate why this is potentially far, far from just an issue on the periphery.



Like I said, you wouldn't HAVE to do it with every player; just a handful who can legitimately claim to have an image worth decent money.

Disagree with the above, its just a fan being realistic.



Wigan and Catalans are settled teams who are on another level to where we currently are.



At HT yesterday, most fans were happy enough to clap the players off as their effort was noticeable in the 1st half.



As a fan, I do think the 2nd half was dyer and a very embarrassing at times. Most of Wigan's 2nd half tries were nothing special, and they cut through Platt and Kear like they weren't there. The way they cut through the middle was very concerning, not to mention Kearney being sidestepped as easily as he did.



Look at out Home fixtrues.... A 'new' team trying to build confidence, so that they can feel comfortable expressing themselves in games, is not going to get anything from Wigan, Catalans and Warrington.



Games like Castleford, Wakey, London, Widness, Salford, HKR is where we should look at how we are comparing. When we start forming partnerships and getting used to how each other plays, is when we will start to play better.



The 1st half was an okay performance, and the 2nd half was just littered with basic mistakes. I don't blame Potter for Tom B dropping the ball so close to the line. I don't blame MP for Sammut failing to find touch twice. I don't blame Potter for Crookes taking a man out in the air 3 times, letting Wigan get out from their try line. Players need to 'man up' and realise they are the ones that are costing us the games.



Sacking a coach as he's just lost consecutive home fixtures against Catalans and Wigan is very rash, IMO.

Thanks Adey, that makes obvious sense. But it must assume that all leading clubs are up to it. If it is legal I would assume they are, if it isn't I wouldn't.