[quote="micktheleyther":3sewmy04].......players are only players in the eyes of the salary cap regulations once they play a competitive game for the club.....[/quote:3sewmy04] Great posts, both Mick & Jack. A question in innocence (in fact two): if a player has appeared in a competitive fixture during the term of his present contract, does that mean that he is counted on quota? If so, could The Devils dodge that by asking everyone to sign fresh contracts (on the same rub) or would the contracts be deemed contiguous by the authorities?

[quote="Bent&Bongser":33498xxb]Great posts, both Mick & Jack. A question in innocence (in fact two): if a player has appeared in a competitive fixture during the term of his present contract, does that mean that he is counted on quota? If so, could The Devils dodge that by asking everyone to sign fresh contracts (on the same rub) or would the contracts be deemed contiguous by the authorities?[/quote:33498xxb] I'm not sure on either of those questions. What I do know is that the government is involved with quota players through the visa system, which will always make things more rigid. The only way I've heard of getting quota players off the books is by loaning them out to another clubs,

[quote="Bent&Bongser":6ytbiewt]Great posts, both Mick & Jack. A question in innocence (in fact two): if a player has appeared in a competitive fixture during the term of his present contract, does that mean that he is counted on quota? If so, could The Devils dodge that by asking everyone to sign fresh contracts (on the same rub) or would the contracts be deemed contiguous by the authorities?[/quote:6ytbiewt] My very unqualified answers are yes, they would count on the quota. This is why the Cup game is a crucial deadline for Salford. Secondly, yes. Certainly a contract of employment can be changed (I suppose this would amount to all intents and purposes as a fresh contract) but only with the agreement of both employee and employer.

Thanks for the reply Mick. Bongser realises now that he muddied the water on the question by misusing the word quota whereby he meant cap. In this light, please reply again as your knowledge in this area is intriguing (and would make B seem "dead clever" when opining in The Egerton (Salford) tomorrow night!)

Thanks also, Jack. Please see the above apologia.

[quote="Bent&Bongser":2efpb7ia]Thanks for the reply Mick. Bongser realises now that he muddied the water on the question by misusing the word quota whereby he meant cap. In this light, please reply again as your knowledge in this area is intriguing (and would make B seem "dead clever" when opining in The Egerton (Salford) tomorrow night!)[/quote:2efpb7ia] Good luck at The Egerton tomorrow night. Could Jack offer a very concerned suggestion for Bongser. Please take (and wear) a very hard hat and expect incoming missiles! The natives are very restless at the moment. Yes, to question 1 in respect of the salary cap. Jack's understanding is based upon recent articles rather than on a strict legal basis. Salford are required to field a team against Midlands Hurricanes whose combined salaries (Salford's players) are below the imposed salary cap figure. To do that they either play their highest paid players and a team of academy children or, more likely, pick a team but with the top earners (probably Sneyd and Watkins amongst them) left out. Those who play will be fixed salary wise to count towards the cap figure because they will by that point be registered as Salford players for the coming season. If the above is right then if Sneyd for example is left out of the team against Midlands Hurricanes then he will effectively be surplus and will have to be sold - pronto.