Re: Kurtley Beale to Wasps
Posted: Sat May 14, 2016 8:39 pm
I'm sure that even if he's not playing, Beale can contribute off the field with his professionalism, leadership and mentoring.
Cough,cough, cough, absolutely. Perhaps he can advise/mentor the lads in the academyLizard wrote:I'm sure that even if he's not playing, Beale can contribute off the field with his professionalism, leadership and mentoring.
Teach them how to beer bong like a boss.oldbackrow wrote:Cough,cough, cough, absolutely. Perhaps he can advise/mentor the lads in the academyLizard wrote:I'm sure that even if he's not playing, Beale can contribute off the field with his professionalism, leadership and mentoring.
I assume he's insured, but I don't know how the injury rules work for the cap, or rather players outside the cap.Peej wrote:Except insurance will cover it, I would think, so have lost out on the player rather than moneytwitchy wrote:He probably already had a medical which means they are screwed. An amazing waste of money.Peej wrote:I wonder if there's some kind of get-out clause based on injury?
His insurance isn't the issue I'd have thought (unless is a career ender), its twofold as to whether Wasps' covers this eventuality (you'd think so) and your point.Digby wrote:I assume he's insured, but I don't know how the injury rules work for the cap, or rather players outside the cap.Peej wrote:Except insurance will cover it, I would think, so have lost out on the player rather than moneytwitchy wrote:
He probably already had a medical which means they are screwed. An amazing waste of money.
I was thinking about him being insured by Wasps to cover their salary spend. On the cap the entire spend allowed on injury cover used to be less than Beale's salary, so they may have a problem, but it might be players outside the cap works differently, if the rumours about Le Roux are true it would seem soBanquo wrote:His insurance isn't the issue I'd have thought (unless is a career ender), its twofold as to whether Wasps' covers this eventuality (you'd think so) and your point.Digby wrote:I assume he's insured, but I don't know how the injury rules work for the cap, or rather players outside the cap.Peej wrote:
Except insurance will cover it, I would think, so have lost out on the player rather than money
gotcha, and as conjectured above. It would be a tad unfair to be penalised when you can't use the player, though it seems not quite as dire as it first appeared. Though 4-6 months still likely means up to half the season missing, and who knows what player he will be after op and lay off.Digby wrote:I was thinking about him being insured by Wasps to cover their salary spend. On the cap the entire spend allowed on injury cover used to be less than Beale's salary, so they may have a problem, but it might be players outside the cap works differently, if the rumours about Le Roux are true it would seem soBanquo wrote:His insurance isn't the issue I'd have thought (unless is a career ender), its twofold as to whether Wasps' covers this eventuality (you'd think so) and your point.Digby wrote:
I assume he's insured, but I don't know how the injury rules work for the cap, or rather players outside the cap.
On the plus side, he's unlikely to be picked for the AI's so soon after an injury. So, over the season, he may play as many games as Wasps anticipated.Banquo wrote:gotcha, and as conjectured above. It would be a tad unfair to be penalised when you can't use the player, though it seems not quite as dire as it first appeared. Though 4-6 months still likely means up to half the season missing, and who knows what player he will be after op and lay off.Digby wrote:I was thinking about him being insured by Wasps to cover their salary spend. On the cap the entire spend allowed on injury cover used to be less than Beale's salary, so they may have a problem, but it might be players outside the cap works differently, if the rumours about Le Roux are true it would seem soBanquo wrote: His insurance isn't the issue I'd have thought (unless is a career ender), its twofold as to whether Wasps' covers this eventuality (you'd think so) and your point.