I'm shocked..................................






You know the RFL will give it the go ahead

Its a dump, I won't argue with that. Could you please explain the rest of that sentence, if you can.

Salary Cap? overseas players maybe? You tell me Desmondo

What does it matter in the scheme of things ?

Would be different if there was promotion and relegation of course.

Should they get a franchise they,d have to spend a small fortune on the ground and Sky will want them to have their floodlights updated. Can,t see that happening.

Did we ever complain about parachute payments when Superleague clubs like Huddersfield and Salford got relegated ? I can,t recall.

Course it matters Frank why should they be allowed an extra overseas player? Its as simple as that. It gives them an unfair advantage.

Curiously, new signing Andrew Henderson was classed as an overseas' player at Gateshead, last season, despite having been born in Torquay!! (and then his family moved to Australia) Rather ironic, that, given the number of Aussies Thunder had, on European passports!

Leigh, on the other hand, have been waiting for over twelve months, to hear whether they will ever be allowed ONE overseas' player, never mind two!

It would have put the cat among the pigeons, if we had signed our Championship One allowance of two overseas' players, before we were re-instated to the Championship!

They'll be backdating the signatures on those contracts as we speak

Still no explanation!

I am happy to debate any irregularities you have evidence to support. If you are just going to shout your mouth off I will have to dismiss you as nothing but a gobsh*te.

To return to topic, the justification behind the approach to the RFL was to offset the increased travelling expenses incurred by being away from the M62 corridor where the majority of players are based. The logic of the suggestion being (rightly or wrongly) that you get more for your money with overseas players. The use of terms like "developing" club has clouded the issue and was poorly chosen.

I agree with the principal, obviously as a Barrow fan, for the following reason, with the reduction in salary cap players across the league will have to accept a reduction in salary. However when your travelling expenses also count under that salary cap, they cannot be reduced proportionally as they are not a negotiable sum, they are the costs of attending training and playing and accommodation. When you are as far away as the Cumbrian clubs from the games largest resource pool (M62) it makes a difference.

Does anyone agree with the logic, is it justifiable or is it just tough luck?

It's not justifiable logic in terms of getting an extra overseas player. If you were asking for a salary cap dispensation, in order to allow you to pay more for travelling expenses, then you would've had more of a case. But even then, I'd say it was a long shot.

Utter nonsense! Expenses are pay arn't they? so they should come under the salary cap, and no i have no proof that Barrow are breaking the cap but i guess you can't prove they arn't. At Leigh we pay for being to close to other clubs why should you not pay for being far away?

I think the proof of any irregularities need to proven by the accusers not the accused.