Does not necessarily follow, but things like this CAN often be a reason for selection policy. There is a section in the Salary Cap Operational Rules that deals with how conditional and bonus payments are handled under the live cap, and that is worth a read too.

That is spot on, I remember in the later Premiership days of City, they left a player out because they'd have had to pay an extra fee to the club that had sold him if he played so many games. In fact, I don't think he played again after that as the club couldn't afford the extra transfer fee.

That of course was purely monetary reasons. In Super League, it's monetary AND Salary Cap.

Part of me hopes that it is the case to be honest. At least then, we can see a reason why Worrincy is getting picked so much, other than just because McNamara sees something in him that nobody else does.

It's about time Donaldson was given a shot starting at Loose. He obviously is good enough and is awesome in defense, as he showed against Warrington when dumping Morley and when he dumped Palea'asina last year against Wigan at home, not many at his age have his defensive qualities. I would definatly start with a back row of Whitehead, Langley and Donaldson.

Ah yes, not considered that

Maybe we should have another whip round ?

He should be playing every week instead of that catastrophe Worrincy, he's gonna be class and he is pretty good now.

Hang on. Adey are you really suggesting that one reason for Worrincy's continued selection could be down to us not wanting to trigger increased salary for Donaldson?

We're surely not that bloody short of cash are we? If so things are in a really sorry state.

Maybe it's more the going over the salary cap, rather than not wanting to pay him more?

Whatever the reason, I hope Macca is managing Donaldson's expectations. The last thing we want him to do is become hacked off and bail out.

Salary cap?

No idea Sam, but I raised it because I know for a fact it has been a reason at times for (non)selection decisions at some other clubs. The live Salary Cap rules covering such situations read to me as now mitigating AGAINST a club doing this, but I'm only a reader of these. And whatever the cash situation is, it could only improve with a few more bodies through the turnstiles.

I'm always reluctant to seriously question coaching decisions - I'd prefer to take on board the observations of those on here who know what they are talking about regarding playing the game itself (as opposed to those who maybe just think they do) - but I have to admit Worrincy's continuing selection is now baffling me. Whitehead and Donaldson by contrast have really impressed me every outing they have had. Maybe Macca is trying to break Donno in gently - to avoid the risk of him getting battered and mentally scarred too young, and maybe ruined as a result? I guess Friday's team selection will be...interesting!

That would surprise me, given that the Chairman told us we were not spending the cap and had headroom. Also, the salary cap rules look to provide for a "standard" number of games deemed to be played for a squad player who is on some sort of contingent arrangement such as per appearance/rise after x appearances/win bonuses/international appearances etc. Different rules for each situation, but the idea is that clubs can plan properly within the live cap, and not suddenly find themselves over the limit retrospectively. 18 games assumed was the "standard" assumption for "per appearance" contracts, IIRC, 14 games assumed for win bonuses IIRC,for example.

Not sure what happens when the "actual" appearances etc differ from the "standard" - a senior guy at the club tried to explain this to me a bit ago but on reflection I'm not sure I fully grasped it.

It was only another factor to consider though, and as Sam said I'd be surprised and disappointed if it was just financial considerations driving team selection.

So say we did play him and it triggered a clause in his contract that came into force after a given number of games. But that clause simultaneously would cause a breach of the salary cap. Could the enforcement of the cap lead to a situation whereby your are technically in breach of pre-arranged contractual agreements with players?

So does this mean that Warrington's players are only playing the first ten games of the season...

I thought I'd sort of answered that one? The player is deemed to play (I think it is) 18 games regardless, when assessing his "salary cap value". Its that value that is used in the live cap monitoring, as far as I can see. If the player plays MORE than that actual number of games (regardless of his contract) then what I am not clear on is whether those extra games are "free" or payments in respect of them count under the cap. And, conversely, whether any fewer games give rise to an "unspent" amount? Someone did try and explain this to me but I clearly did not fully get it.



Certain clubs have their entire senior squad on contracts where they get paid minimum wage, but with massive bonuses for each game they play for the club in a season. All those players have salary cap values based on 18(?) games cost, but on average play far more than that...

Doesn't really sound right, does it? Too open to abuse, so must be more too it than that. Hopefully someone can shed some more light on all this. I'll have another look through the Operational Rules tonight.

Sorry Adey - just scanned through the posts and didn't immediately see the answer. Slap my wrists and call me Susan.

Wasn't trying to be clever there. And, as I said, I'm far from totally clear myself!

And anyway, I thought you were Ethel...?