Mild Rover wrote:But if Rovers were almost at the cap last year, would the net saving really be much more than £100k, after taking into account upgrades for people like Fox?
iirc, NH in his online discussion said something along the lines of having to balance the cap and changes to the squad meaning players out as well as in.
Sheldon hasn't included the 'ins' of Beaumont, Taylor and Mariano. Won't be on huge money individually (nor will Esders or even Aizue though), but between them it'll tot up.
Could it also be the case that the cap referred to isnt maximum and that Hudge has lowered the cap internally? (i false cap if you like)
I know i mentioned in an earlier communication about trying to not spend upto it?
Mild Rover wrote:But if Rovers were almost at the cap last year, would the net saving really be much more than £100k, after taking into account upgrades for people like Fox?
iirc, NH in his online discussion said something along the lines of having to balance the cap and changes to the squad meaning players out as well as in.
Sheldon hasn't included the 'ins' of Beaumont, Taylor and Mariano. Won't be on huge money individually (nor will Esders or even Aizue though), but between them it'll tot up.
\
are they in the top 25 paid players?
Tarquin Fuego wrote: I love Jamie and have done since he was 10 years old.
The Reason wrote:Hi Andy
The Rugby Football League are in the process of reviewing the video that you are referring to. We do not condone behaviour of this nature and have contacted the player’s employer, Hull F.C., who have confirmed that they are dealing with the incident under their club rules.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
Big Dave T wrote:Could it also be the case that the cap referred to isnt maximum and that Hudge has lowered the cap internally? (i false cap if you like)
I know i mentioned in an earlier communication about trying to not spend upto it?
I think he'd refer to it as a playing budget rather than a cap in that case. I can easily imagine the heavy investment in the squad for the 2008 season, the replacement of James Webster with Dobson during that season, the International bonuses for Briscoe and Fox, improved terms for Welham etc will all have added up to a total close to the cap. If the Clinton signing was being held up by cash rather than cap, why the talk of backloading the contract, unless a windfall is expected for 2011?
Sheldon wrote:\
are they in the top 25 paid players?
Fair point. I think Taylor cancels Esders, is a fair and simple way of representing it. So savings of Gene, Aizue, Fozzard and Fitzhenry; new spending of Hodgson, Cook and Ratu, plus contract upgrades = £100k, I don't think is unrealistic.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Mild Rover wrote:I think he'd refer to it as a playing budget rather than a cap in that case. I can easily imagine the heavy investment in the squad for the 2008 season, the replacement of James Webster with Dobson during that season, the International bonuses for Briscoe and Fox, improved terms for Welham etc will all have added up to a total close to the cap. If the Clinton signing was being held up by cash rather than cap, why the talk of backloading the contract, unless a windfall is expected for 2011?
I may be wrong but didnt the rfl ban backloading of contracts?
Some of the players currently in the last year of their deals are on contracts similar to that Clinton is getting ,i.e are on big money in their last year , hence the squeeze on the cap for 2010...
And bear in mind the overseas lads get more than just wages.....
The mail understands.... Scources have told the mail.... The player is expected.... Clinton is thought to have been... Rovers are expected to have.... It is widely expected....
Another example of reading the forums, guesswork and fantasy.
Standing up to the forum bully.
It must be working, he doesn't like me...i'm devastated
So to clarify cos im a bit thick today, the HDM has checked with the RFL and you can backload a contract as long as the club never goes over the cap? I'm pretty sure Wigan were stopped from doing this a couple of years ago, maybe it was because they did go over the cap?
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
Big Dave T wrote:So to clarify cos im a bit thick today, the HDM has checked with the RFL and you can backload a contract as long as the club never goes over the cap? I'm pretty sure Wigan were stopped from doing this a couple of years ago, maybe it was because they did go over the cap?
Weren't they trying to do it retrospectively or something? To be honest I'm not a fan of it as it opens up potential for abuse - although you pay for it somewhere along the line. I don't think anybody would argue with a young player getting incremental increases, but perhaps a wage should not be allowed to more than double over the life of a contract. Mind, it is a complicated enough system as it is.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 174 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
