Enjoy your time at the top but please remove the rose tints

It tends to be the case that players move for money, and if they didnt i would argue saints, wigan and leeds would get the players who wanted to move to a club with a reputation. As a bulls fan i hate to stick up for the rhinos buts its well known that leeds players have stayed for less money to play with lads they grew up with. PLUS, some of the rhinos have played 10yrs for the same club, so only half there salary cap counts.

top of the 20s means nothing

I believe you can only use that rule on one player in your squad.

We can only use the rule on 1 player as Langley is the only one to be here for 10 years not sure about wether it applies to teams with more than one player who's been there for 10 years.

Also U20's means nothing in terms of Youth Development. For the past few weeks people like Halley, Sibbit and Briggs are playing for the U20's and none of them are U20 and 2 of them arn't part of our youth development.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... hford.html The picture is Holdsworth.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... hford.html The picture is Holdsworth.

the rule isnt as simple as half of a players salary doesnt count provided he's played 10 yrs. its half their salary cap value upto a maximum of 50k. so say langley was on 100k, in terms of salary cap he'd only count as 50k. but if we had another player who qualified then that 50k reduction would be shared between the two players. so say 2nd player was also on 100k then he and langley would both count as 75k on salary cap. Theirs only one 50k reduction available to be shared amongst all qualifying players.

Really weird example given in rules is if you have 2 qualifying players on 25k each then their salary cap values are both £0 i.e. for some reason the reduction applies to more than half their salary. don't understand that example at all but its in the rules.

Ah right I wasn't entirley sure that's all, thanks I understand that example, weird but understandable.

I understand why you say that, but the old status quo has already been well and truly disturbed by Wigan winning the GF last season. By the same argument I should be just as envious of them (who ended the Leeds run of trophies), or even Saints who have managed to avoid going into a similar decline (or so it seems).

I'd actually temporarily forgotten that Warrington beat us in the CC final last year. A shame Leeds didn't really turn up on the day after we did all the hard work of knocking out form team Wigan and Warrington bogey club Saints.

Yep, Leeds just handed it to Wire on a plate, as did Huddersfield the year before.

No one mentioned envy at all. It's just odd to me that two teams have fallen foul of the salary cap ( Wigan and Saints ) yet you seem to view them as above suspicion, and instead turn your gaze on a side that has not a single blemish in this regard.

Give us a break. Either Wire are meant to develop good youth players or they are not. These players turn out in the Valvoline cup and it's in that setting that they grow and develop. Would it be better if Wire under 20s were bottom of that league? How else can they be judged?

Well Wire do have some very good U20s. Albeit some lured over there with big money.

Equally you could argue that we could and should be able to hang onto our best youngsters, the likes of Hellewell and Wardle would undoubtedly have figured for us this season so far. The club argument that they may not have made it is holding less and less water when you see they were far ahead of the other backs int he U20s.

I would be interested to know if the Warrington fans on here honestly, hand on heart believe they are spending the same as all the other clubs.
Do they?

I must confess I wondered how we did it in 2005 (and we didn't).

Wire manage to keep 14 full test players plus Brett Hodgson, Michael Monaghan all these promising youngsters (Evans, Blythe, Riley, Grix etc) and Paul Wood under the cap. It sounds a lot. I've just had a go at estimating how much they all get and trying to be fairly objective I found that I'd only gone about £150k over the £1.8m mark. So it seems fairly believable to me.

It also makes me wonder how much under the cap we are!

Its been quite openly stated that king alone is on 300k..solo was reportedly on 150k a season when with us..

saying that i just had a quick jot to say what i think they could be on..could be mind you as noone knows..even with monaghan/morley/westwood/atkins/bridge etc i estimate them to be 200k over..but thats with having riley on 45k. evans on 25k..dont know how much they would be on so reckon its about that..of course they could be on less..ie crossley only gets 15k off of us..tom b roughly same..so with all their stars and still only just over, if at all, then we should be well under.