Wigan signing Feilden was blatant cheating. Cas Tigers taking Gale off the salary cap was approved by the RFL. Big difference.

And the RFL have decided on that, so what you, I or anyone else thinks, is irrelevant.

Ahh yes because no one, including from your club have (or will in the future) criticised or questioned an RFL decision.

Nowhere have I said you can’t question or criticise! You really would be better off talking to yourself; though I’m sure you’d still find an argument where there isn’t one!

People don’t seem to understand the difference between two scenarios:

One where a player plays in competitive games and gets injured either for the rest of the season, or a long period of time with a chance of returning. In both scenarios, the exemption would be unavailable because the player has played in a salary cap game, eg the Challenge Cup or Super League.

Gale is out for the season. To all intents and purposes he’s nothing more than a club employee. He may as well be sat in the Media department. He will not participate in any club game at all in 2019. Therefore, his salary shouldn’t (and rightly so for any player who doesn’t play in SL/CC that year) count on the salary cap until he can make a playing return. Otherwise you would argue that all clubs should be counting all reserves and academy players outside the top 25 on the cap too because they are being paid by the club.

The only way that Gale could return this season to account for his salary is if they make and clear the appropriate space to accommodate his salary. Given his injury is likely to be 6 months plus 2 months rehab for a pre-existing injury to his knee last year, it takes us to September. It’s unlikely Cas will risk him returning with no match fitness and preseason and 12 months spent on the sideline, and even then we would have to be both in the top 5 and playoffs for him to have a chance, albeit pointless.

Therefore in the same vein you wouldn’t count a signing for 2020 in 2019, Gale’s salary shouldn’t count. Not only does it put any club, not just Cas, at a disadvantage by having money tied up in a player who can’t do anything, it also means that the clubs do not have the flexibility to be able to get cover in should further injuries occur during the season. Even if they did, it’s likely the exemption would be granted anyway so what’s the difference?

For those suggesting Gale shouldn’t still count because he’s still employed, wow. Where’s the moral compass? Cas should terminate his contract to get rid of his salary? The bloke has just suffered a serious injury that could potentially not only affect this season but jeopardise his entire career. He has a family and mortgage to pay just like the majority of us on here. You get sick pay when you are ill from work. Cas should do the right thing by their employee and that is stick by him and support him both financially and mentally.

We aren’t having an advantage over any other club. We are still spending the same salary cap on players who can play as any other club, and can only pay the same amount as others. Gale’s salary is nothing more than an off-field salary now until he is ready to return, which probably be January 2020.

Personally I see no issue with exemptions for season-long injuries providing they are season-long and occur in pre-season. Those that happen in season have still contributed to the club’s season, even if it happens in the first game. That’s unfortunate but they have still played. This is more than likely come out in the wash because of the high profile nature and speculation, and because Cas have confirmed it. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that no other club hasn’t ever used such exemptions in the past and even it would be their choice not to exercise it.

Cas have clearly justified sufficiently that Gale will play no part through medical evidence and with specific rules about any return too placed on them.

nobody's blaming cas. the rules there.
the fact is most think it's a bad rule. what's the point of a cap if you can spend more due to an injury

But that’s the point - we aren’t spending *more* because he isn’t playing.

We are keeping to the same cap with everyone else, we just can’t use Gale this season at all unless we clear the appropriate space first.

Do you think he’ll be sat at home all year though? You’ll still have a MOS winner attending training and matches giving advice and tips to your other HB’s especially young Trueman. In that way he can still have a significant impact on your season.

What’s the point of a cap when you can spend more on a marquee player?

He could do that anyway regardless of circumstances. Do you think Kevin Sinfield isn’t giving advice to Lolohea? Should Sinfield count on the salary cap too for giving advice?

No but their’s a significant difference between someone that you’re paying with the sole intention of him being a player. Cas fans are coming out with some ridiculous ideas of what is comparable to try and justify this, kind of just highlights the problem with this doesn’t it.

Not really. It’s the other way round. Fans of other clubs are making ridiculous comparisons or arguments to somehow make it out to be some kind of scandal when it isn’t.

Based on what you are saying, Cas could say to him, we will pay you the same wage and offer you a coaching role for the season. Essentially that would take him off the cap and he wouldn’t be a player. What’s the difference?

Your arguments hold no water. Rugby players are his mates. I’m sure if Trueman asks for advice after his retirement, he isn’t going to say no is he?

As I’ve said in my original post, I’m wholly supportive of any club using the exemption. It would be insane to put anyone on the cap who is going to be ineligible in any game during that season.

What ridiculous comparisons are people making against this?

And no one is saying it’s a scandal so stop being melodramatic, just that it is a poor rule.

Just funny how if the likes of Leeds, Wigan or Saints used this rule then it’d be the usual “RFL pets” and bending the rules for the big clubs. One of the smaller clubs in Cas do it and it’s fine and nothing to see here.

Comparisons such as Walmsley last season, who played games.

Who is to say they haven’t? Because it hasn’t been publicised doesn’t mean to say it hasn’t been used.

The Hull Daily Mail seems to have received news/evidence it has been used in previous seasons. We won’t be the first and we won’t be the last.

Clubs at the bottom won’t use it because a few of them don’t actually spend the full salary cap to warrant using it (eg Salford, Wakefield).

1 - Walmsley wasn’t used as a comparison, if anything as a complete opposite, you might want to understand what comparison means.

2 - So there’s no evidence of it happening before, but it’s ok we can just guess that it did to justify it...ok then.

3 - If a newspaper had evidence that it happened before they would name the insistences when it did. A newspaper saying yes it happened, just believe us without details isn’t worth jack all and quite laughable you’d hang your hat on that, do you not know how newspapers work or operate? Them not naming names pretty tells you that they don’t have evidence.

Would you care to expand on your last paragraph concerning clubs at the bottom.

And if Cas weren’t spending the full cap they wouldn’t get dispensation, most clubs leave a gap in their caps to deal with such a scenario. So what’s happening is Cas are being let off with poor cap management, that’s why it’s a poor rule. That’s why is not comparable to other dispensations that Cas fans want to try throw around to make this sound fine.

Surprised there isn't something in the salary cap rules stating if a player is injured upto 'x' date they don't count on salary cap. Would take all uncertainty out of it.

Can you provide physical evidence of Cas’ salary cap management please rather than your assumptions? I only ask as you seemed pretty keen on needing evidence when the HDM published their article.

Maybe Cas aren’t spending the full cap and they do have plenty of room to sign a replacement without dispensation.....but that would only make the ruling even more stupid.

If Cas were already, lets say, £150/200k under the cap but still asking for salary cap relief when they have more than enough to sign a replacement then only highlights how ridiculous the rule is.

It wouldn't know would it? I imagine clubs would exploit the ruling to there advantage.

Don't see how anyone can have a problem with them being given an exemption if he's literally not going to play for the entire season. Other ways round it anyway even if the RFL didn't let them. Just loan him to a team with enough cap space (presumably only us, Salford and London) in exchange for a favour at some point, similar to the deal we did with Hull for Dean Hadley the other year.

How is that even remotely similar to the Dean Hadley deal? Dean played more or less the full season for us and was IMO one of our top performers, yes Hull needed to offload for temporary relief yet Dean was fully fit and highly regarded throughout the game, if we hadn`t of taken him there would have been at least 5 or 6 other SL clubs that would have.

Simon Grix deal was very similar though.

So would any other member of the coaching staff. Do they count on the cap?

Easy. There’s no use giving a dispensation to a club to spend more money when they can’t afford the existing cap, and can fit a player under it if they wanted to replace a player out injured long-term.