In reference to this article: www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased Wouldn't it have been common sense to just increase the cap by £100,000?

In reference to this article: www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased Wouldn't it have been common sense to just increase the cap by £100,000?

So, we can get credit for Welham & Watts (Knights squad) and Wilkin - see above rule?

Strange ruling which many will fight over, cas will also stake claim to watts and things like that

So what if a club has 4 players in one England squad, then only 1 in the next?

Sounds very complicated.

Bless you and your commitment to understanding the rules. Did you figure out about Taulapapa [uand[/u McDonnell being on Rovers books yet? Complicated.

This rule pretty much makes no difference IMO. Most clubs will qualify to some extent, so little advantage to be gained or lost.

Talaupapa isn't a registered Rovers player simples

[urlhttp://www.hullkr.co.uk/robins-sign-up-taulapapa-for-2012-583[/url
What's gone on after this, then, Phillip?

Hudge's view on the dispensation: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html I have quite a lot to say on this but will hold back for now, except to say such a decision should have been made after a process of consultation with SL clubs (or even a meeting). For me when the RFL intervene like this it usually ends up FUBAR!

Hudge's view on the dispensation: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html I have quite a lot to say on this but will hold back for now, except to say such a decision should have been made after a process of consultation with SL clubs (or even a meeting). For me when the RFL intervene like this it usually ends up FUBAR!

This amendment appears to be a very loosely wrapped up reason to allow Wigan to pay Sam Tomkins more than they can afford under the cap.

Quote Paul T - HKR="Paul T - HKR"Hudge's view on the dispensation: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html I have quite a lot to say on this but will hold back for now, except to say such a decision should have been made after a process of consultation with SL clubs (or even a meeting). For me when the RFL intervene like this it usually ends up FUBAR!'" All decisions affecting the Salary Cap - and just about everything else to do with SL - have to be approved by the SL clubs. They own the competition outright. The RFL often get blamed for things that the clubs actually control.

Quote Paul T - HKR="Paul T - HKR"Hudge's view on the dispensation: www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html I have quite a lot to say on this but will hold back for now, except to say such a decision should have been made after a process of consultation with SL clubs (or even a meeting). For me when the RFL intervene like this it usually ends up FUBAR!'" All decisions affecting the Salary Cap - and just about everything else to do with SL - have to be approved by the SL clubs. They own the competition outright. The RFL often get blamed for things that the clubs actually control.

The RFL have probably done it in good will to keep one of our top stars after two leave in quick succession, probably the same way they relaxed the quota rule only to see it abused like this will no doubt be.

I only Hull don't.

No problem in principle with it. Timing wise it isn't perfect, but neccessarily so I suppose. It is the complexity of the rules that are approaching the farcical IMO.

Overseas players - club-trained, fed- and non-fed... and then quota rule on top of that. All with numerous exemptions.
One of the big advantages of the flat-cap was its simplicity. Now you can have another £100k, but only if you meet certain criteria, and whether you do or not will alter as often as the England squad(s). And is it there to encourage the production or acquisition of England players?

The RFL have to consider binning obsolete rules and simplifying the ones they keep.