Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:24 am Posts: 4389 Location: Stuck in 1982
Fully wrote:
Fair enough.
By not having it you’re penalising clubs in a sport where injuries can occur at any point through any fault of their own. It’s an immensely physical sport and I think we need a degree of flexibility. If you lost 4 players for the season in pre-season, a club could be down £400k on their cap space versus others and only be spending £1.6m on players who can actually contribute versus a club like Warrington spending £2.5m. It’s an uneven playing field and as someone else pointed that already exists with marquee salaries.
As mentioned Gale is nothing more than an off-field employee. We can’t spend more than the basic cap on players who can play this year and we are getting no benefit as Gale can’t play in 2019. We still can only spend the same amount as everyone else. If he does return we have to clear the appropriate space on our cap to be able to fit him back in and under the cap.
On the face of it I think that if a player is injured pre season and stays off the playing roster then the club should be able to juggle the cap particularly if it is a route open to all clubs.
However, I must pull you up on your uneven playing field comment as the rules that Warrington operate their cap and roster are open to all clubs?
Will this get the same levels of outrage and protestation as in the Luke Gale case ?
So they should, the circumstances are the same. I can’t say as I agree with either, but at least the RFL are showing consistency - now there’s something you can’t say very often!
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:36 pm Posts: 7203 Location: The Midlands
tad rhino wrote:
yet hull denied it for dawson who played 1 game. that's why it's wrong
If Hull get it for Dawson only playing 1 game, Wigan should apply for it to retroactively apply to Manfredi who played 0 games in 2017, meaning we didn't exceed the cap.
Login
Register
You should hook a few with that one.
