: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:30 pm
Daz_4 wrote:
well i don't know how much we are already below the salary cap because we have lost players since last year and bought average ones,
to be honest i would of prefered to buy 3 decent players than 5 average and if we get rid of players like harris, tupou, and other players who arn't good enough we would have enough money to strengthan the other area's tht are week
harris and tupou will be costing us alot of money in the salary cap and they are hardly playing this year so why keep them?
The general understanding is that we are spending to the salary cap. Therefore there is no capacity available until a player leaves.
You cannot get rid of a player without paying his contract up in compensation. And that counts as salary cap expenditure.
People maybe keep forgetting...our salary cap has effectively been significantly reduced, because that part of Harris' package previously off-cap is now on-cap - as the little matter of the 2005 and 2006 breaches "clarified".
I suspect you would not GET "three decent players" (if by that you mean decent internationals and/or British) for the cost of "five average ones". My guess is that some of our recruits ae on very much less than many people realise. Bet you'd struggle to get TWO for the same money, and given we were down to last 17 fit (and some will have been far from that) players on Thursday, would we have been happier with only 14 fit? Or 16 if the two out on loan were back? Which part-time plasterer would we have called up this time?
Not decrying the arguments - far from it - just trying to clarify a few points especially for those who think the solution is "sign better players".
