[quote="exiledrhino":yeo2h2xf]I don't think it's worthwhile jumping the gun to replace Sivo. The silver lining to his injury is that at present, we can easily accommodate his absence. [/quote:yeo2h2xf] I`m not so sure that`s the case as presumably the team have been trained to use the battering ram methods of Hall and Sivo. We don`t have that luxury with the likes of Handley or Lumb. So we either change our pre season methods to accommodate a slightly different approach or we look to get someone, know idea who to replicate Sivo`s skillset.

[quote="batleyrhino":3hhm9dql]There is of course a third issue here too, do we actually have another 150k+ to spend on a player? If Sivo is paid by insurance then its fine, but otherwise its a cost the club will not have budgeted for.[/quote:3hhm9dql] I can't imagine there's an insurance policy covering professional rugby players when they get injured because so many get injured that the premium would be huge. It would probably cost 30% of your salary base so wouldn't be worth it for either party as would just be pound swapping. It's not like insuring a dancer's feet for an unexpected freak event. Rugby players get injured all the time and it's unfortunately a business risk. That said, the fact that Leeds appeared to be monitoring the Salford situation for dispensations suggests that we can find the money if required.

We found big money for transfers last year. I don't think that will be the limiting factor. The only issue that really matters is whether there's someone we can get who would materially improve the side - whether a direct replacement for Sivo or not. I've no problem with not spending money for its own sake, but if Sivo wasn't a winger would we even be having this conversation? Some of us think Sivo was going to be central to the gameplan, not just another winger. Not thinking seriously about replacing him seems to suggest we're not going all out this season. I'm absolutely fine if the coach makes that choice BTW.

This vacancy could be a good opportunity to sign a quota player in a position that needs strengthening longer-term, e.g. an explosive second row or centre. Then we keep the player for next season with Lisone making way and signing/developing a non-quota prop, and a fit-again Sivo joins the team in Ryan Hall's vacated wing spot.

We have Handley to play wing and Connor to play centre then academy prospects to cover those. Not ideal obviously but it's not bad. I'd rather wait and look for an early chance at a lisone or frawley replacement as neither has done enough so far to warrant staying. If Newman breaks down for a long spell we might be in trouble.

I really liked the look of Ned McCormack, so the Sivo injury likely knocks him up the pecking order when there are backs injuries. Max Simpson was also very highly rated and Lumb hasn't disappointed when selected. It gives them three players more of a look in. Sivo was the big X factor / marque signing though and so I would like us to sign an x actor player at some stage this season whether that be a 2nd row or half back etc., simply to give us a push for the back end of the season. Not signing an x factor player certainly weakens us.

Whichever way you look at it and whatever the club decide to do... losing Sivo for the season is a huge huge blow... it really is. His ability would and could have made the difference between a win and a loss at times this coming season.. severely weakens our attack.

[quote="HucknallLoiner":3cax52f6]I can't imagine there's an insurance policy covering professional rugby players when they get injured because so many get injured that the premium would be huge.[/quote:3cax52f6] Plenty of Sports Insurers out there for Professional and Elite Sports, including rugby players .

[quote="Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino":2tt9gw29]Bleases interview he states that as Sivo hasn't played a game in the league they don't even have to submit paperwork for him to be removed from the "Live" cap.Its the dispensation possibilities of the quota Leeds are currently exploring but hasn't heard anything back from the Super league admins.Hopefully Blease has something in his little black book that he can put together.I'd rather us hold fire and bring in quality than filling a space so we may have to wait and see if there's anyone being pushed out / not getting game time elsewhere.Reckon we'll still get that email from gawwy saying were up to the cap though, its tradition.[/quote:2tt9gw29] He hasn't played and isn't going to play this season. He's removed completely from the cap. With regard to the quota, there is no defensible position other than to remove him for the season.

It's pretty poor stuff that there's no guidance on quota spot already in the rules. Shambles.

[quote="Trebor1":2r4bwu0x]It's pretty poor stuff that there's no guidance on quota spot already in the rules. Shambles.[/quote:2r4bwu0x] and why is it taking them so long to confirm whether we have a free quota spot or not.

[quote="Trebor1":1kmfsu96]It's pretty poor stuff that there's no guidance on quota spot already in the rules. Shambles.[/quote:1kmfsu96] Absolutely. The two go hand in hand. Rank amateur stuff yet again.

[quote="rugbyleague88":1tk09acu]and why is it taking them so long to confirm whether we have a free quota spot or not.[/quote:1tk09acu] Agreed. Poor that it's not in the rules to start with, another level of poor that this just wasn't sorted within 10 mins of the issue being raised.

[quote="rugbyleague88":1my49qyo]and why is it taking them so long to confirm whether we have a free quota spot or not.[/quote:1my49qyo] Its absolutely amateur

That's a bit harsh. Its just an issue that's never come up before, so isn't codified. The cap exemption will only have been applied a few times since it was first mooted (be interesting to know, as absolutely certain pre season-ending injuries aren't that common). Anyone who has any experience of contracts or legislation will know that these things are often drafted with what seem to be "obvious" gaps. Filling those gaps, despite how obvious they might be, often isn't straightforward, as there may be a tortuous process to do so.

[quote="Once were Loiners":1hyj7gn2]That's a bit harsh. Its just an issue that's never come up before, so isn't codified. The cap exemption will only have been applied a few times since it was first mooted[/quote:1hyj7gn2] Nah, it's much easier doing a brain-dead pile onto the RFL and mis-spelling Hetherington's name.

Matty Lees anyone rumours that Saints are losing Morgan Knowles and Matty Lees due to Capp space Knowles to Dolphins Wire sniffing Lees. Come on Leeds great prop if we have any spec due to Sivo.

[quote="Chesterrhino":b3l2z2n9]Matty Lees anyone rumours that Saints are losing Morgan Knowles and Matty Lees due to Capp space Knowles to Dolphins Wire sniffing Lees. Come on Leeds great prop if we have any spec due to Sivo.[/quote:b3l2z2n9]Those moves are not going to be for this season. The Sivo cap space is so they are unrelated timing wise.

[quote="MjM":sc2nnjjf]Nah, it's much easier doing a brain-dead pile onto the RFL and mis-spelling Hetherington's name.[/quote:sc2nnjjf] I’d say the brain dead ones are the ones who fail to consider overseas players when allowing salary cap dispensation. Amateur.

It's far from a brain dead pile on. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the RFL to consider the OQ situation at the same time as the cap when drafting regs. Occurrences may be rare, but clearly have been considered likely enough to draft the cap dispensation rule. If it hasn't been considered that this may apply to an OQ player, and therefore the impact on said OQ then yes, it is amateur.

[quote="YosemiteSam":3geklbv4]It's far from a brain dead pile on. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the RFL to consider the OQ situation at the same time as the cap when drafting regs. Occurrences may be rare, but clearly have been considered likely enough to draft the cap dispensation rule. If it hasn't been considered that this may apply to an OQ player, and therefore the impact on said OQ then yes, it is amateur.[/quote:3geklbv4] Did you think of it when the first occuronce happened? It's only fairly recent that I can think of it happening, within the last couple of years as far as i know. If you thought of it did you say " what about quota players? why haven't they made provisions?" If not, why not?

fair enough that nobody considered it, but why it's taking so long is amateurish.

[quote="LeedsLurch":3edgd6w3]Did you think of it when the first occuronce happened? It's only fairly recent that I can think of it happening, within the last couple of years as far as i know. If you thought of it did you say " what about quota players? why haven't they made provisions?" If not, why not?[/quote:3edgd6w3] My point is, regardless of how frequently it has actually happened, the RFL has a policy to cover the cap aspect. But that policy doesn't address the OQ implications. So no one thought "what if the player involved is on the OQ?". I find that staggering, don't you? And yes, I did think how does it impact our quota spots, but didn't fret as I assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) the the RFL policy would provide clarity.