According to pearson in a sky interview tonight we have 83% of our salary cap tied up in 17 players. Is that too much? Leaves only 17% for another 10 or so which probably explains the lack of quality beyond our preferred starting 17.

Is that too much invested in the first 17? Not knowing what other clubs do it may be the norm but it does seem a lot to me and doesn't really give much scope for injury cover and maybe more importantly for competition for for places when everyone is fit. We all knew before the season started what 16 of the starting 17 were going to be so that probably breeds complacency anyway

83% of the cap on 68% of the cap players. Doesn't seem ridiculous to me if you think we have a 7 overseas players including MoS nominee Kelly and Tongan captain Manu in there, Taylor and Connor as internationals, double Lance Todd winner Sneyd, MoS winner Houghton. Obviously you'd expect Kelly as an example to be on significantly more than, say, Green or Hadley so not outrageous IMO.

Are you employed by the club in a PR position?

A simple no would have sufficed

Sounds about right to me in fairness, ‘squad’ players will always either be young players with a point to prove or older players playing their last year or two, as players in their prime will want to be first team every week.

Occassionally you get versatile players like Whiting, but they are usually in the 17 somewhere, or players who don’t mind being backup like Steve Michaels (though he had a unique reason for not wanting to go home!) but not many are happy being on the sidelines.

simple no

No I'm not. Just pointing out the credentials which would probably result in pay differentiation within our top 25 players. If I'd just said "no" you might have then responded with a comment suggesting blinkered defence of the club with no supporting rationale.

I'm pretty sure you help clarky write copy for the clubs media feeds. Your posts have that same sense of positive spin despite the scenario

You asked for thoughts on our salary cap utilisation with the opinion it was perhaps inappropriate. I replied with some basic maths and supporting context as to why it's distribution seemed reasonable. If we take out the unnecessary "PR machine" commentary, why not respond to the points made? We have some expensive players on our roster because their achievements have warranted higher salaries than others. The ratio IMO doesn't look outrageous to me.

I, as most on here, are well aware of the career histories and capabilities of our players and therefore have no need for a potted history of each. It may be your accounting personality or an attempt to condescend (or both perhaps) but it's typical of your posting style



OK thanks for the reply

I think that the figures Radders talks about will largely be in line with a few Super League clubs. Nothing out of the ordinary I would say.

Hulls situation has been brought about because it is incredibly difficult to maintain success in a salary capped sport.

As you have won your trophies you will have had your middle of the road players (quite rightly) wanting pay rises. As a consequence, when your genuine stars have left/retired the pot of money had decreased to replace them. Good players have come in but not as good as the stars that left.

To make the situation worse I think it is reasonable to say that some of your young players have not hit the heights expected.

It can all be turned around but I reckon it will take a few years. I could point you in the direction of some people who can put you a 5 year plan together if you like.