Getting Cap Compliant By Not Shedding Players?

Here is a question that is burning at the back of my mind...

If we are supposedly $570K over the cap this year that hopefully a fair chunk might de wiped off this with a potential medical payout of Watmough retiring with what might be left is it possible to juggle the playing roster with resting some players each week and rotating them so the total $ value of players that field the park does not exceed the cap?

As we know the salary cap is designed to ensure fairness and that one team does not have an advantage over another and sure if the best and full squad walks out each week the players are on the payroll and need to all be paid but is there some discretion of forced player rotation to mitigate this so called unfairness that we don't have to shed players?. i.e. one week they rest Norman and Jennings, the next week after they come back and that week they rest Foran & Radrada?

Quiet obviously if this was and could be allowed it makes the task of winning 12 out of 15 much harder but at least we still have a chance and get to keep the nucleus of the side that is more important for beyond 2016.

Any thoughts?

"Point is , he'll hardly be getting Moses money just cause he gets to kick. . We aren't shy to throw a decent paycheque out there and we certainly have some. If we offered that clown that kinda coin , I'm sure we wouldn't have been offering Peasant…"

"He is 35 this year but man he is still playing some good footy. But do you take the risk that father time creeps up right when we get him? Garrick is replacing Nawaqanitawase."

Replies

ParramAddict May 4, 2016 at 10:51pm

That wont be allowed, Watmough is taking up 750k and has been sidelined all year but we are still deemed to have cheated in the last 9 rounds
- Stretchman > ParramAddict May 4, 2016 at 10:59pm
  
  I see your point there ParraAddict but on the other side of the coin, how have we deemed to have cheated by having to pay Watmough... What unfairness or disadvantage have other teams being subject to Watmough not being on the field busting their chops despite he still is getting paid?
Prof. Daz May 4, 2016 at 11:23pm

Number of games a player plays is irrelevant, as the cap is made up of collective annual salaries of the top 25.
ParramAddict May 4, 2016 at 11:29pm

I agree with you totally, but thats why they took the 12 points we earned because they reckon we are over the cap, even though the line ups we have run out with have been under
Glenn Lifetime Eel May 5, 2016 at 8:02am

Fairly simple really. Probably only need to shed 2 players. Get Watmough paid out (say $500k) and Morgan to Storm (persistent rumour, say $200k), that frees up $700k but another 2 would have to come into top 25 but probably at minimum of $100k each so $500k taken care of. We lose 2 players that so far have not played in NRL yet.
Earl Grey May 5, 2016 at 10:33am

Best thing would be for someone to come in with legit TPAs. Bill Moss?

That would highlight how ridiculous the current system is, if a team that the NRL has deemed to be cheating and had it's points stripped, is suddenly under due to a wealthy benefactor! Other clubs would be blowing up!