I understand we are leaving a sum aside as well for the loan market should we need too. We would of used it last yr only we didn't leave anything spare to do so

Still don't quite understand how we can be at full cap when we have lost westerman.

Because we were breaking the cap with him on board and it was always the intention to release/sell him?

But the cap is live though, isn't it?

Ok then we would be in a position were we would be breaking it when the overseas players signed were on contract and being paid. We didn't actually break it as Westerman was released before that point

Possibly, I'm not sure. I had assumed that the cap being live means that the future cap spend is monitored too, in this instance 2016, but maybe not.

It could be that the 2016 cap is only 'live' and monitored from say the 1st of November, due to the player registrations for that upcoming season, and the club knowingly went over the cap momentarily for 2016, knowing a player could be released/sold/de-registered in time.

.... I'm pretty sure the cap year for 2016 starts tomorrow on the 1st December.

It is your forum tonight, innit?

Here's a polite and non-partisan cap-related question, if anybody fancies asking it:

'Adam, you're quoted in today's HDM as saying 'It's an expensive squad we've built'. Are Hull FC spending more on player wages than in previous years? Do Hull FC, or other clubs, manage the cap by temporarily de-registering players?'

The cap is live, so there is no cap year as such.

I think this is right. Westerman was always going imo and we knew.

I wonder why the RFL salary cap regulations on their website, which refers to the cap being "live",
also has the phrase "Salary Cap Year" mentioned more than 100 times?

My guess is that it means that at any given time what club is spending on the wages of the top 25 registered earners, [iextrapolated over a year[/i, does no exceed the cap. That year starts whenever the calculation is made, and those calculations are ongoing throughout the calendar year.

The cap needs to be expressed as money/time, and a year is sensible unit. It could be the cap month, week or even minute. The cap limit is about £3.53 per minute; same thing, just expressed differently and not so easy to understand.

I think the year thing is simply to do with when contracts of players start. We may have signed Pritchard whenever but clearly was not suddenly on the cap at that point.

When contracts start/end will be when players start/stop counting, so there'll be big changes on the day standard contracts come in to force.

But there are adjustments across the year. If a team signs a player on month's loan in April for £5000 for that month, he will count as £60k on the 'salary cap year', but only for a month. It may be that the club was already at the cap. My suspicion is that if the loanee is coming in to replace an injured fed-trained player earning £60k per annum or more, for example, that injured player can be de-registered, and then when the loanee goes back to the parent club, can be re-registered. The club never exceeds the cap, despite spending an extra £5000. Variations on this scenario could answer a lot of the 'how come...?' questions about the cap.

I've seen one or two sensible objections to this theory, but none of them are compelling IMO. On the other hand nobody has ever asked the question, so far as I know.

AP in we are at cap limit shocker, so for all those that derided me about us not having cap space and that we didn't need to sell westerman as I stated to stay under the cap, where are your chiding voices now?
IF and that's a big if, we were to sign Lee Smith that would undermine everything the club has being selling/telling us, i just hope it isn't so, i wouldn't take him if he was playing for nowt.
I find it interesting that mention/rumours of interest in a big name signings when clearly we never had any scope to do so came right at the time of the push to sell passes/memberships