So remove the cap altogether then? It was launched because many clubs could not be prudent. Many clubs still arent even with the cap in place.

I agree.

Where did I say remove the cap? I'm saying that clubs who can afford it should be able to field a competitive side even when they have significant long term injury problems.

Did you not read the part where I said they should never have binned the 50% of income rule?

Think your misunderstanding my reply. I didnt say you had said remove the cap. I'm proposing removing the cap to be debated?

I'd never have binned the 50% rule either. Defeats the object of the cap imo.

The cap has to be raised some time, and at present there is no reward for clubs who have prudent financial arrangements in place. One club can be in the black, and making money it can't spend on players, whilst another can be losing money hand over fist and still be able to spend the same. There could be incentives in place like a club that makes a profit of say over £50,000 on a years trading could be allowed to spend an extra £100,000 the next year on players.

I also think that ther should be a reward for clubs that included over a certain number of home grown players in their first team squads. At present the one size fits all cap is too rigid, and I believe too levelling, and does not reward enterprise off the field, profit making or good youth development enough. Of course with most clubs losing money this suits them but an incentive scheme would see a few clubs who are rubbish at managing their finaces encouraged to get their house in order or fall behind on the cap. Just of course my views.

Sorry, see what you mean now.

I'd reduce any club's salary cap for the following year by the amount they lost the previous season

You guys have been making a profit for a while now and for the last few years, I doubt you guys have been spending to the max on the cap(well maybe apart from this season). So what makes you think you will spend beyond the cap if you had the chance?

The comments of our chief exec maybe?

Yes, they do seem strange dont they.

Not really, he's suggesting that he wants to spend beyond the cap to cover injuries

But I doubt you guys have been spending to the cap(like I said, maybe apart from this year)so for Rule to suggest he wants to spend over the cap seems a little strange.

Maybe we're at the cap now and can't bring in needed palyers?

Are you really this stupid?

And maybe not.

I dont think you get my point!

You'd be wrong.

We've been spending at or near cap every year except last year. We've been pinged twice for going over it FFS.

Last season we had Horne, Raynor, Yeaman, Calderwood on GB increments plus Berrigan, Manu, Lauaki as internationals. We didn't get Crocker but we did bring in Tansey, Broughton and Cordoba and Moa. At some point we paid off Dykes and Raynor as well.

Perhaps being able to loan young players who are not regular 1st team (Paul McShane), or players from NL1, without it effecting the cap!?

Your point is that you are hypothesising about how much we spend on player salaries when you have no idea whatsoever, yet seem to ignore the fact that our chief exec is saying he feels there needs to be a mechanism in place to allow teams with significant injury problems to spend over the cap.

Did you go to an east hull school?

I'm guessing we spent close to the cap when we were deducted 2 points for breaching it in 2003!!! And again in 2006 when we get a slap on the wrist for another breach. Absolutely nothing to brag about, far from it, but it does suggest the club utilise the cap to the max.

I've got sympathy for Hull's injury plights of recents seasons - it could and will be us one year - so I see where Rule is coming from. However it'd be open to abuse, so I don't think it'd be workable. Planning ahead by having a bigger squad with one or two fewer big names, or leaving some cap space free is always an option. Even now, a player out for the season can be deregistered and removed from the cap.
As to changing the cap, the current system has the virtues of being simple to administer and raising competitiveness. Hull are not rewarded for their profits, but that is different to being punished. Profits are their own reward, perhaps? Still if the 50% rule increases stability I'd be happy to consider it - if it comes down to it, an unbalanced competition is better than no competition at all.

I miss read the title of the thread, thought it said "James Rules on the take from the salary cap"

they cant be removed from the cap

you could remove them from the 20/20 when that was in place, that was all

In theory with a live cap, we could, release 3 or 4 players towards end of season, and use their monthly wedge on one player, SBW (visa wont make that work) to win the playoffs.......



But you get the idea....

Nope.

Go read the cap rules.

Codswallop Mr Rule. All that would do is make it easier for wealthier clubs to cope with injuries, rather than (as it is currently) rewarding clubs for cultivating their own youth and tailoring tactics to do so.

There's nothing wrong with the current system, we just aren't particularly dealing with it as well as we could IMO.

Whilst I agree to an extent with JR on this I feel the system would be open to abuse and that could ultimately lead to further problems. Really you have to employ the right squad to cover all eventualities although it is impossible to cover some situations. I guess in a situation where injuries were so bad a team would have to blood a load of youngsters which at the time might not get results but could bare fruit in the future if one or two young kids make the grade.