Manly set to appeal NRL's salary cap ruling

Yeah, what Terrence said.!

The NRL sitting down to dine on a big juicy plate of NRL once again . I love league and it's always been my sport of choice , but in the last twenty years ,and more so recently, stupidity has become the games currency.

Well said. This is a potential massive loophole. How long till we see an NRL side sign a 28 year old on a 10 year deal with a view to medical retirement halfway through? The NRL were doing anything they could to get Parra back under the cap and playing for points again and saw the Watmough situation as an easy out. Now there's not the pressure of that situation they've realised the error of their ways and they're applying the rule inconsistently.

Quite strange ... If they're no longer paying him how can he be counted under the cap ?

Tom G, you are right. Double standards. More concerning, a massive Conflict of Interest for the NRL chief medical officer, Dr Peter Bloomfield. If "NRL chief medical officer Paul Bloomfield, who was at Manly between 2000 and 2012, is in charge of the decision and knows Stewart’s long-running history of knee injuries" should have known also that Anthony Watmough was walking around Dee Why pool and beach cafe strip with his wife and dog a few mornings a week for a few years like a 70 year old man waiting for a hip and knee replacement well before Parramatta signed him to a 4 year contract at 31 years of age. Basically every NRL player by their mid-20s has a "pre-existing conditions", with the knees most likely damaged on an ongoing basis that will lead to eventual retirement (let alone shoulders and ankles that cop a battering, add in concussion). It's the worlds toughest contact sport, the damage to certain areas of the body over a long period of time are horrendous. But why is one person, Dr Peter Bloomfield, the NRL chief medical officer making the decision on Anthony Watmough (last year), Brett Stewart (done?) and Steve Matai (this year), by himself? He was also the club doctor for these players for many years? Shouldn't he say I have a conflict of interest as they were previously under my care so this decision should be made at an arms length from me? Why doesn't ''medical retirement'' go to a panel of a number of doctors (say 7, with four specialists for the specific injury) who have never previously been involved with the player (i.e. not the previous club doctor). Very few mainstream journo's are on the sniff (Paul Kent is, and was last year, intellectually the only one league journo from a very tired looking bunch with the energy to do so). Let's face it, Anthony Watmough was only ''medically retired'' to save Parra/NRL from a dud fixture every week. Let an independent panel, as suggested, look at all the medical records and make an independent decision on all three cases (Anthony Watmough included). I don't care if they take into account the training incident that Anthony Watmough was involved in. The area that was injured in the ''training mishap'' would have been injured previously. Whatever the independent panel finds should stick. If NRL chief medical officer, Dr Peter Bloomfield, got Anthony Watmough's or Brett Stewart's decision wrong, he should resign and never to be involved in professional sport or medicine again. If he was wrong in Anthony Watmough's medical retirement, the penalties should continue for Parramatta (i.e. his salary remains on the cap and Parramatta don't play for point this year and his salary stays on the Parramatta cap for one year more than it would have, till the end of 2019 (to make up for last years removal from the salary cap.) But I think the whole 'medical retirement' thing is a joke. Get rid of it. Unless it is an illegal on-field action (i.e. Alex McKinnon) there is no basis for ''medical retirement''. While it is there, it will encourage clubs to sign old warhorses (i.e. think Matt Scott this year at 32 signing a long-term deal with either the Cowboys/Knights/Roosters for four years at $3m and him playing 16 games over two years than being ''medically retired'' after all the injuries and battering his body has taken. The club would never have signed him on that money for so long if they knew there was no medical retirement). At the moment the whole idea of ''medical retirement'' and the process, as well as all involved, should be independently, and transparently, examined.

Consistency has never been a strong point of the NRL.

Not really. This year is the last of Stewart's contract so they've not committed any money to him for next season. Even the if the NRL approved it, Manly can't allocate any money they got back on Stewart for this season into next years contracts. This decision won't impact Manly's ability to extend contracts into next season and beyond.

So Watmoughs "injury" that ended his career according to the Eels and is ticked off the cap by the nrl without question even though the insurance investigation knocked back the claim. Manly have no bogus insurance claim but the nrl disallow a cap exemption?? No double standard here!

But they could use it to extend contracts.

Strange ruling that a one off is counted but a build up of injuries over years are not. Surely the decision should be around whether the player is fit enough to play footy regardless of how many injuries he's had. Many 'one-off' injuries are caused by years of wear and tear anyway so it seems a fairly arbitrary difference. Probably won't matter too much for Manly unless they're already over the cap. Say they get Stewart's money back, who are they going to spend it on and sign at this stage of the season?

I don't see why Manly should get them taken off the cap cause two of their players aren't up to anymore. Poor management.

Beastie this has nothing to do with an insurance claim. I am taking about an NRL medical dispensation that will give salary cap relief for 2 players who will not play a game in 2017. The NRL did if for Watmough and his alleged training ground collision with Scott last season even though the insurance company is refusing to pay out on Watmough's insurance claim. Watmough had been playing on one leg for years. It appears that once again the NRL are playing favourites.

Tell me one insurance company in the world that would give you a pay out for a pre-existing condition?

Another brainless decision by the NRL. No other sport in the world would have a ridiculous rule like this one where players can be injured in a previous season, have operations and can no longer play the game. Yet their club does not get medical dispensation for the new season.