Its conveniently forgotten that injuries have been catching up with Chris Hicks. For the last two seasons he has been unable to kick after being first choice kicker previously due to leg injuries. there have also been periods where he has been out or only on light training to get him between games. A couple of months before the season end he stated he would retire because his body had had it...then he had a good injury free spell and reconsidered.

Warrington are having a very tough pre season...rumoured to be much tougher than previously. Joel Monaghan is going well in it

What would you do if you were Warrington/Chris Hicks /Joel Monaghan if
a) Chris Hicks had recurring injury problems
b) Chris Hicks (and his family) had other possibilities in Aus
c) Joel Monaghan was doing well, training unpaid
d) Joel Monaghan was happy living with his brother

Looking at Hicks record, Warrington would not easily let him go. Thats why they gave him the benefit of the doubt about retirement (as they also have with David Solomona - Tony Smith likes to have 3 or 4 senior pros who influence the young guys and have a positive playing ethos) He has been a model pro and has a great strike record.

Even letting him go and signing Monaghan, if Hicks was fit, would be a risk.

So headline should be "injured 34 year old retires - replaced by the brother of existing player"

What would solve all this sniping and uncertainty, is for all clubs salaries to be published. They don't need to give players names, just a list of how their 1.7 million is allocated amongst their squad, i. e. 1x100 000, 2x 75000 etc...etc...

It wouldn't. Hull KR and Wigan would find a loophole for certain players to be exempted from the regulations and they would release a list of 16 figures and everyone would cry 'But they've got 17 Australians, why are they not listed?'

There is no way to solve the uncertainty, Melbourne proved that. Even with a 'live cap' in force, when it's enforced by the fools at the RFL it'll never be anything like water tight. I'd love to know how far they go in the auditing of the salary cap. Do they, for example, require bank statements for all accounts held by players and their families and the same for Directors and associated companies? I suspect none of that is done and it's all handled on a mysterious trust system. I'd go further and say the 'live cap' is merely a spreadsheet on a server at the RFL. It's probably got cell format errors, totals that only go half way down the list and a few plus and minuses the wrong way round here and there.

This is what people campaigning for banking reforms have been asking for in the City, and it doesn't look like its going to happen. I would have thought the odds of it being brought in in rugby league because of arguments on an internet forum are pretty slim!

With the cap though I reckon if we are going to have a cap, rather than an overall total, it would be better to have a variation of the old 20/20 rule, where you just said to clubs, OK what is a reasonable number of first team senior players, say its 16. Then you say what's a reasonable salary for a senior player, say its £30k (I am just making these figures up). Then you just say there's no overall cap, but each club can only have 16 players on over £30k. That way you stop players leaving the game because rich clubs can pay whatever they want, for top players, but it does two things, one it forces clubs to include a high number of young upcomers (on lower than the £30k) in their squads every year, and two it spreads around the talent, eg if a bright young talent comes through at a top club who already has its 16/30 filled up, and then a lower club has a space freed up next season, then they can outbid them for them. It is as close to a 'draft' system as we could get.

Some people would say this system penalises clubs who produce a lot of young talent, but it doesn't really, what it means is, if the young talent is good, then they are forced in to using them rather than keeping them as fringe players, so they need to promote them rather than signing ready made imports. If they make the choice of a senior player over a promising youngster who has proved himself worthy of a place on the 16/30, then that player will probably join a lower club. So overall in the long term you would get a transfer of young British talent from top clubs, to the lower ranked clubs once they have had a couple of years experience, and the only way for the top clubs to prevent this talent transfer, would be to sacrifice on imports. It wouldn't be a perfect system but no system is, and I think this system has some good positives.

It states in one of the rugby papers this morning, that any pay off Chris Hicks has received will not count on the salary cap due to the timing of the pay off. Cute Simon, cute

might i suggest you read the excerpt from the rules on the previous page, then stop pouting Sylvia.

Typical Warrington. Sticking to the salary cap rules yet again.

It'll never catch on in the North West i tell you

Chris Hicks has been a brilliant player for the club and I wish him the best.
Monaghans a superior player though, than both Hicks and King. Monaghan to stay and when King goes next year, hopefully we'll use that last Quota spot for a player of world class quality, of which Matt King is not

I'm pretty sure Hicks has more rugby in him. I wonder how long his retirement will last?

Just out of interest does anyone fancy putting in a few quid to give a very good cause some publicity? The dogs trust sponsoring Monaghan would be priceless.

So who is actually going to play centre for wire next year?
As far as I can see, there's 4 players and 2 centre slots, so will wee see Bridge to 1/2 back, King on the wing or Atkins at 13?

Monaghan, Bridge, Atkins, King

or

King, Monaghan, Atkins, Riley

All pretty versatile which gives us good depth.

Monas and King to the wings, Bridge and atkins 3&4 imo

Bridge is an out an out centre as Riley is an out an out winger the rest are interchangeable so i think we'll see a lot of moving about probably even in the same game.

Doesn't matter though we have a great set of backs this season, the strongest i've seen at Wire for some time

I'm a huge fan of Bridge in the centres, so wouldn't like to see him moved. I know Atkins has played 13 for you and to be honest I think that could be a good position for him. He's got the muscle and would add some zip and pace to a pack which has plenty of size. He also would be defending a bit closer to the middle, which may suit him better.
Obviously you see them more often, so will have a better idea.