Live salary cap

Remember that we had enough room on the cap to sign Chase 2/3rds of the way through the season, coupled with Mckinnon, O'Carrol and Ellis leaving I imagine we have a decent chunk to pay him out of this years cap

Where is that in the rules?

Would be an obvious loophole allowing teams to get around the cap. For example you could offer a player towards the end of his career a 3 year contract, knowing full well he will only play 2 years, and be paid off for the third, allowing a lower cap spend for those 2 years. Could call it "back loading", would surely not be allowed.

More likely we do have some cap space left this year, how much is debatable. If we had signed Chase this year, it would have been less than 4 months of his contract, perhaps 50K.

Only covers salary cap relevant games and only operates during the season.

Following (probably excessive (mea culpa)) recent analysis of the fine detail of how the live cap works, I think the general consensus was that it doesn't work like that.
But as EHFCF says, you could just pay him off kinda like Wire did with Hicks. The issue is that that it'll cost [ia lot[/i of money and it's just money down the drain.

McDonnell, Chase, Holdsworth and a Kiwi prop would only be 4 non-feds. It's unlikely, but you could keep him.

Sure theres also something you can do if a player retires so it doesnt count

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/RFL%20Operational%20Rules%20section%20E.pdfHere they are.[/url


No system is without loopholes. However, doing what you propose would be 'against the spirit of the cap' and Wigan were fined for trying something similar a few years ago.

The 'live cap' system calculates the initial SC liability of each club on 1st November every year, and then monitors changes during the year. If a player is released after the end of one season and before 1st November then he doesn't count. Moreover, it is now possible to release a player DURING the season and not necessarily be penalised depending on the details of his contract and/or reaching an RFL-approved termination agreement with him. And his cap value would be immediately removed.

We could have an agreement in place already with Seymour lodged with the RFL so we have his space free on the cap.

What is it with the obsession some have with home grown players?

Crooks has done a job when asked. He has not stood out and, IMO, lacks pace to be a serious attacking threat.

Arundel is streets ahead of Crooks in all facets of the game.

What was the situation at rovers last season when they deregistered Dobson to allow Mason to play? Was Dobsons wages part of the cap for that period?

If Seymour is not going to be part of the future playing plans, could he be removed from the playing roster and employed (in title) as part of the coaching staff to keep him off the cap?

Irrespective of how he has performed, he came to us under the impression of a 3 year deal on decent money. He will not want to give that up on the cheap. Another thing to factor into this, from Seymours point of view is the tax position he is in and whether he needs to be "out" of New Zealand for a certain length of time.

I also assume that Jamie Ellis and O'Carroll will have been paid off to some degree to have their contracts terminated?

Whilst I agree that Arundel will correctly be ahead of Crooks in the pecking order, I do still think that your criticism of Crooks and his pace is complete bum gravy.

I'm sure hkr weren't allowed to pay him as he didn't have a contract?

Why would we put Seymour on the staff? If we can't come to an agreement pay him off.

I doubt Ellis and O'Carroll got anything.

That was to make quota space, not cap space. We'll have had enough cap space for both, so it didn't matter from that POV.

You could de-register Seymour, but you'd be seeing a large amount of money wasted. And the game would be seeing a medium amount of talent going unused.
A transfer that subsidises his wages to a club without cap or non-fed constraints would be the obvious out.
Say they've got a promising youngster, you could pay them £100k plus Seymour, the cash helping them to pay his wages. Could even work with Salford for Holdsworth, as long as Seymour was convinced they were financially stable - just bung some extra on the fee on condition they take BS as well. I'd be asking them for the £100k as a signing on fee if I was he, mind.

Dobson still had a contract, he was just de-registered while Tonga sorted their poop out - which they didn't. Bad Tonga; Jersey would have sorted it.

O'Carroll and Ellis may well have been on deals small enough to make them an attractive prospect to Widnes/Cas. Seymour is presumably in a different position in that respect.

Or, as mentioned above, we could just pay him off. We have the cash and it wouldn't count on the cap.

Yep - same thing just painted different. Helping Seymour find a club [imight[/i be cheaper for Hull - or he might prefer to take the cash and be free to sort it out himself.

Seymour hasn't exactly done a great deal to make him a good catch for any other Superleague club has he?!

Maybe he is playing injured or maybe he just CBA after AP made it clear the signings were not good enough and we will be looking at new half backs.

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

Mine is that, for a back, he is not fast enough to be a real threat. Look at his try against Leeds, he hardly streaks away and he runs at the same pace as a prop.

Are you also inferring that Crooks has stood out ?

If you check I also said that Crooks has done a job, hardly a criticism.

Put yourself in Ellis or O'Carrolls position, you sign for a club for two years and they want you to leave. They would have to make it worth your while to leave.

The thing with Seymour, if he wanted to see out his contract, which is his choice, take him off the playing staff and his wages would not be on the cap.

Why don't severance payments count as part of the cap?

With the lack of halves around id imagine Seymour will get snapped up and if he doesnt then a partnership of Holdsworth AND Seymour might actually be alright

Briscoe only has a year left on his contract and sadly as good as he is when he is fit, he has missed more than he has played. McDonnell can I gather play wing and possibly other positions in the backs, he is also pretty quick and we dont have any real flyers. So I suspect our plan would have been to put him at fullback when Briscoe wasn't available and play him on the wing when he was. All a bit academic now since he isn't coming our way.

Why would Crooks stand out in his debut season? Not many players do this and I don't think that was expected of him. SL experience and game time is exaclty what he needed and got plenty of, with a couple of nice touches along the way.

Firstly, I think that to suggest a back cannot be a real threat unless they are quick is not true, it depends what else is in their game and it's early doors for Crooks in that regards. Secondly, I think you're way OTT about how 'slow' Crooks is. He's not lightning fast, but he's quick enough for centre. I certainly don't think he's any slower than Whiting was there, nor Yeaman really. Jamie Lyon has also never had pace to burn but he's still been a top class centre. Pace is an advantage, but not a fundamental requirement unless ridiculously slow.

I wasn't just referring to the post I quoted, either. You have commented on Crooks a few times now and been fairly critical IMO. No, he has not stood out, but I'd agree with Tommy that I don't expect 18/19 year old debutants to immediately stand out. In fact, I'm actually impressed that he hasn't stood out more for looking out of place.

If they already exist as part of the contract they are already factored into the cap value of the player. If not then an approved severance agreement has to be reached and as long as it complies with RFL rules it doesn't add to the cap. Or at least not in full.