news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 687637.stm Quote Hull FC chief executive James Rule is calling for a review of the current Super League £1.6m salary cap to allow for replacing injured players.'" Anyone agree with this or is this just sour grapes? Should they have a large squad, capable of covering such injuries. Should they just accept 'the way it is', ala Leeds earlier this season? What about when the injuries clear up? Do you have to get rid?

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 687637.stm Quote Hull FC chief executive James Rule is calling for a review of the current Super League £1.6m salary cap to allow for replacing injured players.'" Anyone agree with this or is this just sour grapes? Should they have a large squad, capable of covering such injuries. Should they just accept 'the way it is', ala Leeds earlier this season? What about when the injuries clear up? Do you have to get rid?

They should get on with it like all the other teams that have had injuries, thats why they should leave room on the SC incase this happens.

Sour grapes! Everybody is in the same boat if they have they several top players out at the same time.

Utter b0llocks! If players get injured then you use your squad players and your talented youngsters. The SC should be changed but not for these reasons!!

If you don't want injury problems then don't build your squad around 30 year olds. Surely they spend more time out than younger players on average.

Spot on. You increase your chances of getting injuries by having so many old players.

They're right to call for a review of the Salary Cap, but sadly these are not the reasons.

Well if a player is out for the whole season i have no problems with that player being unregistered and another coming in.

Whats the point of a cap where you can bring players in when one is injured, if anything this would encourage clubs to have a smaller squad with higher paid/prifile player safe in the knowledge that if they get injured you can get someone else in

No sympathy what so ever for Hull. They sign a 33 year old and a 32 year old in the off season and expect peak fitness? It's not going to happen!

The only way the salary cap should be changed is with regards to rewarding clubs who promote talent from within their own club, not signing more players because of bad luck with injuries.

No clubs were calling for such a change when we were crippled with injuries, copping thumpings at Leeds & Saints and on the verge of relegation.

Didn't Maurice call for something similar in '05 when we had all those injuries?

i agree if a player is rules out for a big percentage of the year his wage should not be counted on the cap. Enabling them to bring in long term cover

IIRC (not sure if it was '05 though) - Didn't we de-register Locky when he was out for most of a season?

Like I said. Not 100% on the player, but I'm certain that we have de-registered someone in the past.

However. Since then, the rules have changed so that if a player plays even a single game for you, his ENTIRE salary counts on the SC (to avoid coaches playing for "odd" games or "certain" star Aussies coming over, playing for 2 weeks and taking a shed-load of cash).

So basically, if a player has played even 1 match, there is nothing you can do.

All I can can say is tough shït.
Cultivate your academy and stop bitching.

I couldn't disagree more.

That would encourage clubs NOT to develop the academy payers, and could lead to "professional RL mercenaries", who just hire themselves out for an inflated price at the end of their careers, to clubs in these positions.

Like I said - Suck it up and develop the academy.

End of thread. Nothing else needs to be said

Absolutely, it will encourage clubs to "grow their own" instead of picking up talent from clubs with a good youth policy. a lot of "good" Wigan youngsters could end up playing for their home town team as could Leeds and Stains youngsters, leaving the clubs without good youth development policies to live off the remainder........... oh noes, I could see 3 big clubs dominating again, so it'll never happen, the ars-eff-Hell would never let it .

But from the RFL's point of view, making SC allowances would help the clubs with poorer squads more than it would help us (as we've already shown we have the squad to cover injuries).

On that basis alone, wouldn't they go for it? "Level the playing field" even more?

Like all proponents of the CC, it is amazing how such arguments are raised due to the self-interest of the clubs involved. Where were the similar cries last year? Or the year before?


The only people who seem to criticise the CC on principle, rather than self-interest are those of us who still advocate a scrapping/major overhaul of the CC, despite our team riding high at the top of the league.


But hang on..........we were constantly told that the "only" reason we wanted to scrap/change the CC was to enable Wigan to do well.......................ironically enough, by the same supporters who are now wanting a change to the CC ..........yep, to improve the chances of their team......


QED. You couldn't make it up.