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

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.

Only reason I can think of is that they might need the clubs to approve it. No idea if that's right though

Maybe they need to consult with lawyers, and that's never a quick process

It very possibly needs other club approval, most things in SL do. It may also be tied in with the RFL's agreements with the home office over quotas and visas. But nah I'm sure it's just incompetence.

I wouldn’t want to employ you with the reactive rather than proactive mindset. I don’t think it takes a genius to consider when giving salary cap dispensation’s for players injured in pre-season what to do in scenarios where the player is on the quota but clearly thats just me.

The lack of competence isn’t around anything to do with other clubs or the government, it’s around how something that is relatively obvious can be missed in the first place. When RFL were thinking about rules around excluding players from the cap, it’s at best negligent of them not to consider the impact on different categories of player that could be affected.

The misunderstanding here is thinking it is the RFL who create the salary cap rules.

The RFL are the body in charge, they are responsible in making sure all the rules and regs created by whoever, are fit for purpose.

They essentially implement the rules. The clubs define them.

Given Salford have been saved , have any of our inside track posters heard anything about who we might be after to fill the Sivo space, assuming the quota issue is cleared up.

Given each club has 7 quota spots , who usually fill spots in the starting 17, the rules don’t cater for 40% of the potential players that could be impacted. That’s a pretty poorly thought out rule.

Announcement incoming.