The SL salary cap for a year is £1.825 milion.



Clubs should be allowed to exceed this, without any RFL penalties, so long as the excess in any year is matched by an increase in the issued and paid-up share capital of the entity owning the club.



Then any owner could offer any player say a £250k a year contract (even if the club is already committed up to the cap) - so long as he buys £250k worth of shares each year to match that excess spending.

Yes. Because what we really want is for half the clubs in the league to be rendered uncompetitive, reducing their fan bases or worse still, have owners who live beyond their means and turn their club into Bradford Bulls.

The devil would be in the detail, as always. But if an owner is prepared to put share capital in - AND commit to NOT reducing it for a decent period - I think that idea, or something along those lines, warrants consideration.



If you don't put the capital in, you can't spend it. So such a proposal would not lead to living beyond means.

Owners and directors often invest in the form of loans though.



When they want their money back...

Not quite clear on just what is being proposed here.

Is the OP saying that to spend an extra £250k then that amount MUST be put into the club as share capital or that to spend an extra £250k (raised any way) then an extra £250k of share capital must be introduced, ie an increase of £500k into the business over the financial year?

1 - a loan is not an investment. Go google it.



2 - in future, owners should be free to put their money in in the form of ordinary shares, preference shares, stupid investor shares, or loans. Substance is just the same.



But any loans would have to be subordinated to the claims of other creditors, and not able to be repaid until and unless all other creditors have been or clerarly can be repaid in full.



Which, funnily enough, is precisely what Mr Khan at Bradford would have HAD to do anyway, as soon as his company drew up its annual accounts, to avoid a going concern qualification.



And plenty of precedents amongst the responsible owners of clubs that are or were technically insolvent - like Davy, for example. That is precisely what they already did, and where relevant do. The only reason Khan got away with not doing it was because his company was too new to file accounts.

Under company law its VERY easy to reduce share capital as long as the company is solvent.

Indeed. Which is why I said anyone seeking to avail themselves of such a provision would have to commit to not reducing the share capital for a defined period.

That's my point!



Do you even read threads?



As the OP suggests, investment can fund spending over and above the cap...not loans.



The suggestion being if the money is the club's, not subject to repayment in any way, why shouldn't they spend it on players?



Unfortunately, owners and directors tend not to give their money away. Koukash and Davy may be the only ones with anything like the funds or the will to do that.

Er..how can you "...invest in the form of loans" then? I read what you wrote, and responded to what you said.



I assumed you were having yet another dig at Bradford. If you were not, then I apologise for mistaking your motives.

You are obsessed man!



No-one mentioned Bradford and given their plight, I don't see any way in which a thread about rich owners being allowed to overspend the cap through non-returnable investment, could be!

You are doing an equally-good impression of being obsessed elsewhere! So I'm sure I can be forgiven if I interpreted your comment about owners' loans as a sly further go at Bradford? Even if this time I appear to have been utterly and completely in error, and am totally happy to acnowledge it.



And indeed, "Bradford" and "Rich Owner" is a clear oxymoron, now and for the foreseeable, unfortunately. Unless Ken Morrison treads the Road to Damascus...