Quote: MattyB "Lots to pick out here for me, namely these changes were proposed by Rads, Paul Lakin (Hull KR) and Karl Fitzpatrick (Wire). Yet when it came to the vote 11 clubs rejected and only one proposed it...of course it's us.
WTF? Is this just me or does this article try to make Wigan look bad again. Obviously any mention of salary cap changes gets the anti Wigan salivating.
These changes followed on from RFL consultations with all clubs. But they then compile a report to pleased to confirm all changes only for clubs to vote against it.
Who's running this sport at all.'"
the initial thoughts based on the article are 3 clubs propose changes, but then 2 of them vote against it??
it feels like yet another case of tail wagging the dog
i'll be honest looking at the points, i dont like them all, however, surely there must be some debate and opportunity to accept / reject or modify each individual element within a clubs board meeting. For example on point 3, is 6 weeks really going to make that much difference when it comes to the cap. Yes, if the player is out for a full season / rest of the season, then i can understand that, but 6 weeks seems too short and unlikely to have an material impact. Point 4 i would assume the clubs would want something from the RFL for releasing players, not the ability to increase their spend, so i can sort of understand a rejection on that one
so IMO there must be debate, and acceptance to move the cap forward, even if there is modification or rejection of individual points
