Longshanks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:25 pm
Does anyone know whether the salary cap has to include players no longer at the Club but for whom Tigers have a residual contractual obligation?
In other words if we're topping up Manu's salary elsewhere does that reduce spending power on our own squad?
It would do.
But on the topping up that could potentially be a matter for the courts, as it would have to mean damages payment.
Note this contract with Sale also apparently ends after next season.
So he's clearly targeting the lions then going to aboard.
Maybe another reason Tigers might not have pushed hard to keep him?
Longshanks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:25 pm
Does anyone know whether the salary cap has to include players no longer at the Club but for whom Tigers have a residual contractual obligation?
In other words if we're topping up Manu's salary elsewhere does that reduce spending power on our own squad?
The cap includes any "payment or benefit in kind paid in respect of a Player in connection with his redundancy or the termination of his playing contract with the Club including all redundancy or termination payments or benefits in kind". Any such payment counts towards the salary cap year during which the termination occurs, regardless of when the payment is made. So yes, if we have to pay off Manu, or any of the other departees, those payments will count to this years salary cap.
Therefore, those players leaving may not actually give us any room in the cap for this season, and could in fact put us over the cap for 19/20! I'm sure Tigers have thought of that though and have avoided it. On a more positive note, it does mean that we have a lot of salary cap spare for 20/21.
Longshanks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:25 pm
Does anyone know whether the salary cap has to include players no longer at the Club but for whom Tigers have a residual contractual obligation?
In other words if we're topping up Manu's salary elsewhere does that reduce spending power on our own squad?
The cap includes any "payment or benefit in kind paid in respect of a Player in connection with his redundancy or the termination of his playing contract with the Club including all redundancy or termination payments or benefits in kind". Any such payment counts towards the salary cap year during which the termination occurs, regardless of when the payment is made. So yes, if we have to pay off Manu, or any of the other departees, those payments will count to this years salary cap.
Therefore, those players leaving may not actually give us any room in the cap for this season, and could in fact put us over the cap for 19/20! I'm sure Tigers have thought of that though and have avoided it. On a more positive note, it does mean that we have a lot of salary cap spare for 20/21.
I would imagine the players would be waving all moneys owed once they sign for a new club, otherwise we'd be better off keeping them and playing them ourselves
Longshanks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:25 pm
Does anyone know whether the salary cap has to include players no longer at the Club but for whom Tigers have a residual contractual obligation?
In other words if we're topping up Manu's salary elsewhere does that reduce spending power on our own squad?
The cap includes any "payment or benefit in kind paid in respect of a Player in connection with his redundancy or the termination of his playing contract with the Club including all redundancy or termination payments or benefits in kind". Any such payment counts towards the salary cap year during which the termination occurs, regardless of when the payment is made. So yes, if we have to pay off Manu, or any of the other departees, those payments will count to this years salary cap.
Therefore, those players leaving may not actually give us any room in the cap for this season, and could in fact put us over the cap for 19/20! I'm sure Tigers have thought of that though and have avoided it. On a more positive note, it does mean that we have a lot of salary cap spare for 20/21.
Thank you for that detail. So what may hurt also is the degree of financial uncertainty unless or until our leavers find new clubs and agree terms. We could miss out on potential new signings while other negotiations pan out.
I honestly think that if there are any remaining contract payments to be made, and imo it’s a big if, they will be the subject of lengthy court proceedings and wonhave any immediate impact.
I would imagine that as the players have been announced as leaving, everything has been negotiated and settled.
The idea of just terminating a player's contract and him then suing for the difference in salary when he signs for less elsewhere is extreme. Why would the club want to have that uncertainty hanging over them, or want the negative PR? Why would the player want to go through a 2 year legal battle to get his wages? You would have to have some serious bitterness from one or both sides to end up in that position.
Tiglon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:27 pm
I would imagine that as the players have been announced as leaving, everything has been negotiated and settled.
The idea of just terminating a player's contract and him then suing for the difference in salary when he signs for less elsewhere is extreme. Why would the club want to have that uncertainty hanging over them, or want the negative PR? Why would the player want to go through a 2 year legal battle to get his wages? You would have to have some serious bitterness from one or both sides to end up in that position.
Tiglon wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:27 pm
I would imagine that as the players have been announced as leaving, everything has been negotiated and settled.
The idea of just terminating a player's contract and him then suing for the difference in salary when he signs for less elsewhere is extreme. Why would the club want to have that uncertainty hanging over them, or want the negative PR? Why would the player want to go through a 2 year legal battle to get his wages? You would have to have some serious bitterness from one or both sides to end up in that position.
I agree the last thing the Club wants is for "legacy" negotiations to drag on but neither can they afford to be held to ransom for the sake of a quick resolution. It surely boils down to the advice given to and acted upon by the players. Surely none of them needs the money to put food on the table short term so what are the lawyers telling them?