Dave K. wrote:
I still can't believe we are at cap.
My suspicion is that you (Hull) probably are not, and I think there’s some value in being pedantic about it. I’m going to overdo it to emphasise the point, but let’s use a Rovers example first. When Mike Smith was chief executive at Rovers he’d sometimes be asked during fans’ forums whether the club was spending up to the cap. He’d typically say something like ‘we spend the full value of the cap’. Implying ‘yes’ but to me strongly indicating ‘no’ - because he could have just said ‘yes’ or ‘we’re at full cap’ if that was the case. The extra words create a little bit of ambiguity and my assumption was that was intentional. A way of avoiding input from the speculate-to-accumulate sages without having to actually lie.
A reminder here that the cap only applies to the top 25 earners, but the overall spend on players could easily include the entire first team squad… and might even be stretched to cover the academy and so on. Although that’d be pushing it.
The quote that people thought confirmed Hull are spending the cap, in fact doesn’t.
Maybe, technically.
‘We can only spend £2.1 million on players, which this club does year in year out.’
No mention of the cap as the reason that the spend is limited.
Hull won’t be miles under the cap, even if my cynicism is justified. And there’s no doubting you’re getting poor value from some contracts. But I’d bet you box of 12 Lidl choc ices that we’re at least sailing in the grey area between spend and cap spend.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting any form of dishonesty. I’m suggesting intentionally precise use of language.
