This is the definitive ! I have a source too close to reveal - Lovegrove was keen as Rovers offering peanuts to most of their squad BUT now a no go ! Howes (agent) has seemingly not covered himself in glory but anyway Lovegrove now a NO GO

They closed that loophole by not allowing registrations after a certain date IIRC. So are we now saying the salary cap is actually 133k a month rather than 1.6m a year?

Edit: what exactly is the point of the salary cap? Surely as long as a club doesn't spend more than 1.6M on wages over the course of a season that's all that matters?

care to add any actual substance to that post?

as in why it's a no go?

Lovegrove has been found to be going bald.

Would paying for hair implants count on the salary cap?

I think in essence, that's it, yes.

I don't think it should, but the baldist RFL class it as an employee benefit and therefore it counts on the cap.

Maybe Lovegrove should just buy a cap and hide his so called problem.

But why? How is that helping to either A) stop clubs spending above their means or B) encouraging a more level competition?

It baffled me as Rovers must have upped the offer....mind you,the fact that rovers are offering crap deals is something....waste of time building that new stand isnt it.

These aren't rumours.. these are salary cap discussions!

A friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend said he saw Benji Marshall at Humberside airport phoning for a taxi to the KC!

For why, see my other post. For A), it doesn't, but the scrappage of the 50% rule killed that anyway. For B), in theory, it means that every clubs' squad is of the same value throughout the course of the season, rather than being able to save a bit of money for 7 months, scrape into 7/8th, then spend a shedload on a handful of quality players for the playoffs and win the title.

I get all of that but what is the reasoning for a gradually reducing salary cap as the year goes on? A club that holds back say 60k cap space is actually only holding back 5k a month. What if they have a bad spell of injuries and need to bring in 2 or 3 loan signings for a couple of months and the total spend it 20k but 10k each month? They have broken the monthly cap but not the total cap for the year. What exactly is this rule achieving?

The deadline for signing players has stopped that anyway. Even if you do sign top quality players in the latter stages of the season you still have to pay them a substantial wage in the following seasons so it would only work once.

I suppose hopefully it means promoting more youngsters, as any with few appearances in previous seasons are cap exempt aren't they? Makes clubs have to be more responsible for producing young players who are near to stepping up rather than being able to fall back on other clubs who do do things the right way doing it for them. In all honesty we've become one of the most guilty of this, so I kind of welcome that by-product of the method.

I'm not saying it's an ideal system, I can just understand why it's in place and can't personally think of a better alternative.

And it's not a gradually reducing cap, it's simply choosing not to spend all of it.