Ian
Matt Myers
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png)
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by Ian on May 31, 2007 7:11:27 GMT
As has been said, the cap is easy to stick to, all clubs know this and are well aware of ways to circumvent it.
University courses are one such way. Panthers have used others - players' wives being paid for "jobs" done for the club, payments from sponsors to cover wages (re-signing of Jimmy Paek and I believe Lee Jinman midseason were publicly attributed to this, for example).
As far as I am concerned, taking the moral high ground is a bit of a pointless exercise. Instead, rather than moaning about Steelers / Blaze / Giants or whoever we should be asking why our own team is not using some of the same methods - we have two extremely popular and well-respected universities within our city, with other institutions in Derby and Loughborough hardly a million miles away. Ample opportunity to make similar deals to those on offer elsewhere. I believe we have dipped our toes in the water on this, but the Steelers' current recruitment shows how beneficial it can be to set up a proper scheme.
At the end of the day, I am sure our own owner is well aware of how the rules can be circumvented and has the financial clout to compete with whatever our rivals are doing in terms of signings.
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on May 31, 2007 10:30:18 GMT
The wage cap is a joke (not surprising given the fact that the league is a joke). The whole point of a wage cap is to control spending. If teams are finding ways to spend more than the cap within the rules, then the rules need changing.
I don't blame any individual club for finding and exploiting loopholes within their means. I blame the league for not closing them. The league should either scrap the wage cap or find a way to enforce a spending limit effectively. There should be no need for grey areas. If closing the loopholes means the teams can't spend enough to provide good enough hockey then by all means increase the cap (how much by is an entirely different argument).
The league should have access to the club's financial accounts. The wage cap should include other benefits and bonuses as well as basic salary - if the Inland Revenue can do it then the league should be able to do it. The wage cap should also include any money and benefits paid directly from sponsors to players. The latter would be harder to enforce as I doubt the league could demand accounting information from sponsors. Anything paid to a player's relative or partner, should be in line with what would be reasonable for whatever it is they're being paid to do. I know a lot of the above wouldn't be all that easy to prove/enforce, but not even having rules against it is ridiculous.
One final point to consider is that if there is a wage cap, should it be adjusted to the average wage/cost of living for the area that the team is based in? I'm sure £20k goes a lot further in Hull than it does in London for example.
|
|
|
Post by mattscold on May 31, 2007 10:34:11 GMT
One final point to consider is that if there is a wage cap, should it be adjusted to the average wage/cost of living for the area that the team is based in? I'm sure £20k goes a lot further in Hull than it does in London for example. Good point Doughnut never really thought about it, but your right geographical cost of living should be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by sawchuk on May 31, 2007 10:35:57 GMT
The wage cap is a joke (not surprising given the fact that the league is a joke). The whole point of a wage cap is to control spending. If teams are finding ways to spend more than the cap within the rules, then the rules need changing. I don't blame any individual club for finding and exploiting loopholes within their means. I blame the league for not closing them. The league should either scrap the wage cap or find a way to enforce a spending limit effectively. There should be no need for grey areas. If closing the loopholes means the teams can't spend enough to provide good enough hockey then by all means increase the cap (how much by is an entirely different argument). The league should have access to the club's financial accounts. The wage cap should include other benefits and bonuses as well as basic salary - if the Inland Revenue can do it then the league should be able to do it. The wage cap should also include any money and benefits paid directly from sponsors to players. The latter would be harder to enforce as I doubt the league could demand accounting information from sponsors. Anything paid to a player's relative or partner, should be in line with what would be reasonable for whatever it is they're being paid to do. I know a lot of the above wouldn't be all that easy to prove/enforce, but not even having rules against it is ridiculous. One final point to consider is that if there is a wage cap, should it be adjusted to the average wage/cost of living for the area that the team is based in? I'm sure £20k goes a lot further in Hull than it does in London for example. Or just scrap the wage cap entirely, but I agree with your sentiments.
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on May 31, 2007 10:54:22 GMT
Or just scrap the wage cap entirely, but I agree with your sentiments. That would be one way to go, but I think that's a different argument and shouldn't necessarily be required in order to put a stop to the fiddling. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the use of a cap I can see various pros, cons, and counter arguments, but avoided that issue for fear of muddying my point about the methods of enforcing a cap.
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on May 31, 2007 11:22:02 GMT
The league should have access to the club's financial accounts. The wage cap should include other benefits and bonuses as well as basic salary - if the Inland Revenue can do it then the league should be able to do it. The wage cap should also include any money and benefits paid directly from sponsors to players. The latter would be harder to enforce as I doubt the league could demand accounting information from sponsors. Anything paid to a player's relative or partner, should be in line with what would be reasonable for whatever it is they're being paid to do. I know a lot of the above wouldn't be all that easy to prove/enforce, but not even having rules against it is ridiculous. The EIHL has very little in the way of an administrative structure - I doubt they have the resources or money to address such matters in that sort of detail. Hence the gentlemens agreement rather than a rigid framework. Very true. Rick Strang will tell you about the very real problems the Racers had housing their players as a consequence of of that.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on May 31, 2007 12:14:19 GMT
As I said on a previous thread, my concern is if teams like Hull/Edinburgh/Basingstoke don't like the loopholes that are currently being exploited we may end up finding ourselves with a very small league in the not too distant future. I've got a feeling we'll see less shock results next season with the likes of Hull/Edinburgh winning fewer games against the top four.....I guess time will tell. And as I said in reply to you on said previous thread... these loopholes are open to all teams, regardless of size - and may, in fact, be easier for the likes of Hull & Edinburgh to exploit than simply paying higher wages. In fact, I believe that some of the smaller teams (Edinburgh for one - good university there) already have some kind of link going.
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on May 31, 2007 12:21:29 GMT
yes but if say Edinburgh can only afford to pay £200,000 a year for there roster it doesnt matter if they can or cant exploit the loopholes they simply cant afford to. say the cap is £350,000 and Panthers spend it all then weve got better players (theoretically) to the sum of £150,000, which could still leave Edinburgh quite competitive, whilst if we then go out and spend another £100,000 on bonuses and whatever then that could blow the Caps out the water completely.
its ok saying that the loopholes are open to everyone but at the end of the day theres teams that simply cant afford to exploit them and thats why the wage cap is there, to keep even the rich clubs close enough ability wise to the poorer clubs so that everyone can compete.
Nick
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png)
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on May 31, 2007 13:19:42 GMT
yes but if say Edinburgh can only afford to pay £200,000 a year for there roster it doesnt matter if they can or cant exploit the loopholes they simply cant afford to. That's my point. With crowds of 500 - 1,000 it's unlikely that teams like Edinburgh can get near the £200,000 even when you include all those little extras like education, other jobs etc etc. Whereas Sheffield and Nottingham can afford the £200,000 but now as well as offering incentives worth £100,000, suddenly they're offering incentives worth £200,000. So you go from a position of Edinburgh having a total budget of £150,000 (including all extras) against Sheffields £300,000, to a position of Edinburgh still having £150,000 (the max they can afford) against Sheffields £400,000. Result = gap widens. Regards Doom
|
|
|
Post by rickstrang on May 31, 2007 13:41:22 GMT
I would suggest that the belief that the wage cap is in place as a means of ensuring a so-called "level playing field" is a false one. My understanding of the cap is that it provides an affordability framework in a business sense and is not intended to ensure that every season any team in the league could win the league.
Even if that's incorrect I actually can see no point in tampering with the current flexible agreement. To date only one team has folded in the EIHL over the past four years which by UK hockey terms makes it one of the most stable leagues on record. I can also assure you that the cap played no part in London's downfall.
Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png)
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on May 31, 2007 14:01:06 GMT
I would suggest that the belief that the wage cap is in place as a means of ensuring a so-called "level playing field" is a false one. My understanding of the cap is that it provides an affordability framework in a business sense and is not intended to ensure that every season any team in the league could win the league. Even if that's incorrect I actually can see no point in tampering with the current flexible agreement. To date only one team has folded in the EIHL over the past four years which by UK hockey terms makes it one of the most stable leagues on record. I can also assure you that the cap played no part in London's downfall. Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? The danger comes when teams start to try and chase success by outspending each other. I don't have a problem with teams manipulating the wage-cap if all the member clubs are happy with that. I really don't know exactly why the wage-cap is in place. Is it to protect the clubs from themselves? Is it to help maintain a levellish playing field? I can only assume there is a purpose behind it, otherwise why bother having it in the first place? What I don't get is if there is a wage-cap in place for one of those reasons, it sort of defeats the object of it if all and sundry can bend the rules any way they like. If it is to help maintain a degree of parity, then the current trend of finding loopholes maybe great for the supporters of clubs like mine who can afford to spend more, but long-term where is it going to leave the Elite League as a whole? I guess time will tell. I'd be interested to hear the views of supporters from Edinburgh and Hull. Regards Doom
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on May 31, 2007 14:52:25 GMT
I would suggest that the belief that the wage cap is in place as a means of ensuring a so-called "level playing field" is a false one. My understanding of the cap is that it provides an affordability framework in a business sense and is not intended to ensure that every season any team in the league could win the league. Regardless of the reason(s) for a wage cap, I still think it's pointless to have a cap with so many loopholes. The loopholes mean that the cap isn't really a cap, and clubs can effectively spend whatever they want. Personally, I'm not sure (and before I get flamed, I'll repeat: not sure) I agree with having a cap at all. If it's there to create a level playing field then I don't think that's what sporting competition is all about. If it's just there to stop clubs spending more than they can afford then it's club managers with good business sense that's needed, not a wage cap. Even if that's incorrect I actually can see no point in tampering with the current flexible agreement. To date only one team has folded in the EIHL over the past four years which by UK hockey terms makes it one of the most stable leagues on record. I can also assure you that the cap played no part in London's downfall. Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? Who said it ain't broke? Surely that's a matter of opinion? Personally I think a 'sport' that can be decided based on which team can think up and exploit the most loopholes to bend the rules is a bit ridiculous. May as well increase the cap to a level the clubs are happy with and close the loopholes.
|
|
|
Post by Borussia10 on May 31, 2007 15:50:17 GMT
I would imagine though they are sure about his ability to let him have one of the university places. 9 minutes - Must be a record !!! ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) For the record I'm not actually accusing Steelers of breaking the wage cap, more making a point about how clubs are finding ways around it. Bit rich anyway, plenty of Steelers accusing Panthers of breaking the cap based solely on rumour. Now that's a record, and without rolling eyes. Try it, it's better than being sanctimonious. It wouldn't be as fun! Including your good selves - fitness coach?? Hmmmm thats the best ive heard yet. The thing is, its getting pretty damm boring when everytime we sign a player the same old things are said.
|
|
|
Post by texpef on May 31, 2007 16:53:36 GMT
then sign what is perceived as some makeweights and it would make it more believeable that the steelers arent then cheating....
|
|
|
Post by sawchuk on May 31, 2007 16:57:51 GMT
Or just scrap the wage cap entirely, but I agree with your sentiments. That would be one way to go, but I think that's a different argument and shouldn't necessarily be required in order to put a stop to the fiddling. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the use of a cap I can see various pros, cons, and counter arguments, but avoided that issue for fear of muddying my point about the methods of enforcing a cap. From my own stand point I simply don't see the logic in the league having a wage cap, if teams are going to " work around it." I don't blame the teams for doing (if that is what some/all actually are doing) and it'd make sense to have the WAGS all working in a massage parlour in order to sign better players, but... If the league isn't going to enforce it's own wage cap & eliminate loop holes blah blah blah, then what is the point of having on per se?
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png)
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on May 31, 2007 17:25:21 GMT
For the record I'm not actually accusing Steelers of breaking the wage cap, more making a point about how clubs are finding ways around it. Bit rich anyway, plenty of Steelers accusing Panthers of breaking the cap based solely on rumour. Now that's a record, and without rolling eyes. Try it, it's better than being sanctimonious. It wouldn't be as fun! Including your good selves - fitness coach?? Hmmmm thats the best ive heard yet. The thing is, its getting pretty damm boring when everytime we sign a player the same old things are said. Where is it stated that Coreys role as Fitness Coach will affect his wages?
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png)
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on May 31, 2007 18:13:28 GMT
If the league isn't going to enforce it's own wage cap & eliminate loop holes blah blah blah, then what is the point of having on per se? Those are might thoughts Shin. Either have a wage-cap that is enforced/abided by or don't bother at all. I guess we'll start to find out in the next year or two if some teams do believe the wage-cap should be enforced, because if they don't like what is going on they'll probably jump ship into the EPL. Regards Doom
|
|
matt44
David Clarke
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_silver.png)
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by matt44 on May 31, 2007 18:53:23 GMT
I'm sure all this gets discussed at the EIHL meetings.
Edinburgh get subsidised air travel from BMI baby so that may help them save some cash towards players.........
|
|
dp
Jim Keyes
Posts: 966
|
Post by dp on May 31, 2007 20:08:14 GMT
...and Edinburgh get their ice time for practically nothing, so nearly all their ticket money is straight into their coffers whereas we have to pay thousands of pounds for each game.
And Newcastle now seem to have a link up with their university, hence the Campbell signing.
It's all much of a muchness. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the games are competitive, and nobody goes bust, I really couldn't care less.
|
|
|
Post by NickThePanther44 on May 31, 2007 20:52:13 GMT
dont worry Doom, i was only trying to help get your point across.
to be honest its a sad state of affairs when our current league is judged as one of the most successful just because only one team has folded, oh well.
Nick
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png)
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on May 31, 2007 22:22:25 GMT
dont worry Doom, i was only trying to help get your point across. to be honest its a sad state of affairs when our current league is judged as one of the most successful just because only one team has folded, oh well. Nick I know...and I agree with you. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, I just hope the league doesn't split into two as I fear....Time will tell. Regards Doom
|
|
MP
Paul Adey
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Hail hurts and rain is cold. Summer in the mountains
Posts: 6,811
|
Post by MP on May 31, 2007 22:48:57 GMT
I just hope the league doesn't split into two as I fear....Time will tell. It's worrying that you voice that concern Doom, because over the years, your predictions regarding most aspects of hockey have been pretty accurate....... I share your concerns - just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope you're wrong this time! ;D
|
|
|
Post by grumpyminer on Jun 1, 2007 0:33:46 GMT
Back on topic - What do you say his name is?
Randy!? Ran-dee!!
I wonder if there will be much mickey-taking? ;D
|
|
|
Post by barnsleyfan on Jun 1, 2007 1:41:11 GMT
Looks a nice little signing there. Hopefully he can defend as well as put the points on the board. 3 more signings to go and it's only just June!! P.S. Just got back from Germany - Mark Smith will love it there! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
Doom
Greg Hadden
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_orange.png)
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by Doom on Jun 1, 2007 6:45:02 GMT
I just hope the league doesn't split into two as I fear....Time will tell. I share your concerns - just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope you're wrong this time! ;D Yup, I hope my concerns prove unfounded. The quality of signings here in Sheffield definately seem higher than in recent seasons and the names being mentioned for Nottingham give me the impression you'll be in the same boat. Let's just hope that the teams who finished further down the league last season will also see an improvement in the quality of their signings, then we could be in for a cracking season. I guess time will tell. Regards Doom
|
|