Don't agree should be playing for us, even at full strength he should. E in the 27, wrong decision from Radford

As previously stated, what a bonkers decision on the face of it.

or is it salary cap ?

I suggested this also. Can't see any other reason for it personally.

I thought it was a live cap and you couldn't sign a player that would take you over it.

Simple answer is YES

If we get him back ? Not too sure we will !

If it is a salary cap issue then he would be on a season long loan wouldn't he?

No disrespect to the lads on the bench but we were playing the form team of SL with a few key men out.
Litten
Fash
Turgut (although swapped lat min with tommo)
Green-who Radders said later shouldnt have played...Is the lightest bench I can recall us putting out in many a year (lightest in all aspects I mean..Not just physically)
Whilst hadley is getting MOM and a couple of tries down the road at Wakey doesn't make any sense
All the while blasting Sika and mini for 80 as we're running into Easter and it's ludicrous fixture list.

Exactly, Radford has gambled with these loans and it may backfire?
For me , last night Hadley would have been in . Even Abdull . He has loaned out our better squad men , and kept some very inexperienced ones. Abdull the season long one I can understand. The Hadley one makes no sense .

No idea of the politics of this but he played for Trin against us on good Friday and we were all saying you must have great strength in depth if you can allow him out on loan. Worked his socks off.

We've no idea of the politics either, unfortunately. Would have him back in a heartbeat at the moment.

Quite simply a mistake. One or two of our elder statesmen creaking somewhat ( won't be helped by overplaying ), some of our kids just not stepping up. Exposes the gap between the likes of Hadley & those taking his place in the 17.

On a positive note hopefully we will welcome him back ( if salary cap permits ) club & younger players now MUCH better informed of what is required. No lasting damage done - club should be stronger for it.

Hadley just gone off with (what looks like) shoulder injury

I guess we'll be getting him back then

He came back on later in the game

How does the cap work regarding Hadley on Wakefield's end? Presumably they have to pay part of his salary and that in turn counts towards their cap and what effect would that have on ours overall?

The loan system is odd - cap wise.

Essentially all of Hadley's salary will now sit on Wakefields cap, regardless of how long he's been there or how much they actually pay towards his wage. Consequently that also means Hadley's salary now doesn't sit on ours.
It enables clubs that have a lot of play on the cap to take players on loan but only pay a percentage of the wage saving £££.

Not really sure where the benefit lies with us on this one.

Surely if he plays for us those games count on our cap (or am I being too logical for the RFL?)

At the time he played, yes. Which means at this moment we are (or should be, which makes it even more confusing) Hadley's wage under the cap.

If you think about it, the system actually makes sense. It makes it easier for players who perhaps are frustrated by a lack of opportunities to move out on loan to a club that could afford to take their full wage on the cap, but couldn't afford to physically pay it.

Is he on season long loan?

No, the point is that Wakey have enough room on the cap to have his (60k p/a) sit on it, but the two months will actually only cost them 8k (assuming Hadley earns 4k per month, which is a complete guess).

Tweeted yesterday "Still another week on my loan deal." when asked when he was coming back.

Hope he comes back then

Hadleys on £60k p/a?