Tweet
This rule sucks.
We will not be able to use the veteran's list until at least 2006. That's assuming Matthew Nicks and Stuart Maxfield are still going around that year. I think we all realise that's relatively unlikely. Realistically, we probably won't get ANY benefit out of the veteran's list until 2008, when Micky can go on the list, assuming that he is still playing by that time.
It's not the salary cap part that's bothering me. It's that clubs with veteran's list players - the vast majority - have the ability to access further depth than we do. We're capped at 38 players. Teams like Brisbane or the Kangaroos, with at least two veteran's list players, can have 40.
That's not fair. If we get an equally long injury list to Brisbane or the Roos, they've got an advantage. They can simply play one of their extra players, or at least promote one without any difficulty. They'd have Rogers on their senior list right now. The Swans? For the same depth, one of our players must be out at least 8 weeks. Great, huh?
My suggestion is simple. Go back to 40 player lists. If clubs have 4 players for the vet's list, fine. Those four players each have 25% of their salary outside the cap, and they are counted amongst their 40 players. That doesn't bother me. But they shouldn't have more players. We should be able to promote one or two rookies if we want, to be able to get to the same list size as other clubs if we wish.
This anomoly is much, much more inequitable than any perceived inequity with the salary cap. This is actually preventing us from having our best side on the field in round one.
We will not be able to use the veteran's list until at least 2006. That's assuming Matthew Nicks and Stuart Maxfield are still going around that year. I think we all realise that's relatively unlikely. Realistically, we probably won't get ANY benefit out of the veteran's list until 2008, when Micky can go on the list, assuming that he is still playing by that time.
It's not the salary cap part that's bothering me. It's that clubs with veteran's list players - the vast majority - have the ability to access further depth than we do. We're capped at 38 players. Teams like Brisbane or the Kangaroos, with at least two veteran's list players, can have 40.
That's not fair. If we get an equally long injury list to Brisbane or the Roos, they've got an advantage. They can simply play one of their extra players, or at least promote one without any difficulty. They'd have Rogers on their senior list right now. The Swans? For the same depth, one of our players must be out at least 8 weeks. Great, huh?
My suggestion is simple. Go back to 40 player lists. If clubs have 4 players for the vet's list, fine. Those four players each have 25% of their salary outside the cap, and they are counted amongst their 40 players. That doesn't bother me. But they shouldn't have more players. We should be able to promote one or two rookies if we want, to be able to get to the same list size as other clubs if we wish.
This anomoly is much, much more inequitable than any perceived inequity with the salary cap. This is actually preventing us from having our best side on the field in round one.
Comment