Quote ="48756c6c20 524c4643"Team x has player y on £100,000/year and has a full year to go on contract, Team z will take you off his hands but only want to pay £60k/year as they are doing you a 'favour' by taking him off your hands as a problem player and £100k off your cap so they ask for £40k to cover that difference. Tea x say no, team z say fine, we'll go elsewhere, player y keeps on getting £100,000 and could be left on the sidelines all year long doing feck all and taking up cap space.
Given the circumstances and feeble excuses he should have had his contract terminated and he be told to do one, taken the urine out of the club IMO, seemingly the 'can't settle down/don't want to move into the area excuse gets brought up too often as a reason to want out.
Remember Bulldogs did same with regards to Pritchard and they allegedly covered half his actual wage cost so they could offload a player well past their best and use his salary cap elsewhere. Pearson was never going to continue on paying the huge chunk of wages so it was a gimme FP was going back to Aus despite the supposed 'contract' length.'"
You are very much correct.
The difference with Super League is that the whole wage will come off your cap and only what the Giants pay him will be on ours. The difference will be an added expense to Mr Pearson.
In the NRL the “difference” remains on the selling clubs cap.
