Re: Warriors stick with same c...

[billyboy]

We already know that Farrell has played his last game. Now Hock is out for the season so what do we do? As usual, nothing. We allow St. Helens to sign a world class back row forward. Latics have a player injured for three weeks and go out and sign two new players. Guess where the priorities are at JJB!

[Fraggle]

billyboy posted:
We already know that Farrell has played his last game. Now Hock is out for the season so what do we do? As usual, nothing. We allow St. Helens to sign a world class back row forward. Latics have a player injured for three weeks and go out and sign two new players. Guess where the priorities are at JJB!

Here we go again. Salary cap? 20/20 rule? Rugby league and soccer are not the same? Do these things mean nothing to you?

We don't already know Farrell has played his last game, today's report from http://www.wigantoday.net/ViewArticle2. ... eID=965140 says:-

Lindsay added a decision on Andy Farrell's future will not be made for a 'few weeks' as Warriors wait for the RFU to produce their final proposals.
Farrell is off crutches and has resumed training with Wigan.

If the decision takes too long Faz will be fit to play for us again and I can't see any reason why Betts wouldn't pick him if he was available.

What Latics spend is irrelevant to what the rugby team can spend. Different sport, different rules, different culture. Nobody buys rugby players for £millions like they do in soccer, and if they did I think the sport would quickly die with such silly money being spoken about.

There is talk (see elsewhere) of another player being brought in. That's hardly doing nothing. Hock isn't going to be the best-paid player, we could hardly replace him with someone on big money which this Anderson bloke may be getting whilst keeping within the salary cap. If the rules state we bring in a cheaper player then those are the rules. We all know what the penalties for breaking those cap rules are, and we haven't got enough points yet to risk that.

[billyboy]

billyboy posted:
We already know that Farrell has played his last game. Now Hock is out for the season so what do we do? As usual, nothing. We allow St. Helens to sign a world class back row forward. Latics have a player injured for three weeks and go out and sign two new players. Guess where the priorities are at JJB!

billyboy posted:
We already know that Farrell has played his last game. Now Hock is out for the season so what do we do? As usual, nothing. We allow St. Helens to sign a world class back row forward. Latics have a player injured for three weeks and go out and sign two new players. Guess where the priorities are at JJB!

Thanks for the education Fraggle, I was completely unaware of the salary cap and the different rules for soccer and rugby. The point I am making is that some clubs always seem to have availability under the salary cap, but we don't. Remember we were told that we had to release Luke Robinson because of the salary cap and then went out and signed Moran. Does that make sense to you? Leeds and Bradford sign players like Lauiti'iti and Harris mid season.

[Fraggle]

billyboy posted:
The point I am making is that some clubs always seem to have availability under the salary cap, but we don't. Remember we were told that we had to release Luke Robinson because of the salary cap and then went out and signed Moran. Does that make sense to you? Leeds and Bradford sign players like Lauiti'iti and Harris mid season.

No, we signed Moran as a replacement for Lam, not Robinson. Good as Robinson could be from time-to-time, he's not as good or experienced as Moran and we should always want the best players we can get. If that means we sacrifice some players to pay for better players, then so be it. It may be that we couldn't afford to keep both Robinson and Moran, so the club has made its decision about which is the better player. Presumably the club were looking at their options for a long time before the decision to release Robinson and Hodgeson - maybe they also attracted a transfer fee because of their age? - and it was decided that to bring in new players we would have to get rid of some existing players to stay within the salary cap.

As for other clubs, they also do consider the salary cap. I'll admit I don't understand how the space for Spotty Harris became available, but Leeds released players (remember a certain G. Connolly returning to Wigan last year?) before signing Lauititi. Skints have brought in this Anderson bloke having released two players, he wouldn't have been considered had they still kept Smith and Feaunati so there's nothing being hidden there.

As I said, I doubt Hock is expensive in terms of the salary cap so if we were to bring in someone like Anderson we might need to spend more money. Who else would you sacrifice to pay the new guy's salary?