Not sure, are we effectively playing next year with a squad with 300K less salary cap? Is this the same as the debacle where we had to pay T-Rex to play for the Dogs?
By the reports that would be close to the mark, maybe we are not paying that in full to Choc depending on what was negotiated with parra for the early release but it will be counted under our cap for some reason as it was bonus payments from previous years
In the grand scheme of things, it won't make much of a difference. Just about every club in the league is paying amounts to one or two players that are no longer at the club. It's commonplace in rugby league circles in the professional era, as contracts are signed and broken ad nauseam.
Our consumption of fossil fuels is similar to a back-ended contract. It enables the world's oil and coal companies to get mega-rich now, and our grandchildren and future generations will be left to deal with the consequences down the track. Thanks Des.
That's a yes and no answer. Remember, we have also probably saved 300k from what we would be paying Choc. So we signed someone to replace him (lets say Mateo). Also, you would imagine, if we are paying part of his contract, then the Warriors are paying part of Mateos contract. The situation is different to the farcical situation that would have been the T-Rex scenario where, once the season was over and T-Rex decided to leave, Schubert decided we didn't pay him enough. Though, in the end, we were able to accept a cap breach so we didn't have to pay him in 2013 - this was the only way we were able to register the contract for Brett.
