array(2) {
[0]=>
string(815) "
select r.*,
rc.info,
t.title as threadtitle,
u.username as username,
u.anonymous as useranonymous,
`f`.`value` AS `flairvalue`,
`ft`.`name` AS `flairname`,
`ft`.`colour` AS `flaircolour`,
`ft`.`icon` AS `flairicon`
from reply as r
join thread as t on t.id = r.threadid
join replycontent as rc on rc.replyid = r.id
join user as u on u.id = r.userid
left join `flair` `f` on `f`.`userid` = `u`.`id` and `f`.`categoryid` = `t`.`categoryid`
left join `flairoption` `ft` on `ft`.`id` = `f`.`flairoptionid`
where r.businessid = :businessId
and r.threadid = :threadId
group by r.id
order by r.utcdated desc
limit 0,50
"
[1]=>
array(2) {
["businessId"]=>
int(1)
["threadId"]=>
int(37631)
}
}

Years ago
Can the Hawks fit an import under the points cap?
^doesn't that defeat the purpose of the marquee player rule???No, because you can still pay them, theoretically at least, millions. If it didn't count against the cap at all, teams using the marquee rule basically just get a free player.
The marquee player should be exempt from the salary cap.
So if they haven't used their marquee signing, the salary cap is not stopping them from doing so.It is if they've already spent $850,001.

Years ago
^doesn't that defeat the purpose of the marquee player rule???
The marquee player should be exempt from the salary cap.

Years ago
Are any of their big names a marquee signing? If not, then the salary cap isn't really an excuse for not getting a big name player.The marquee player still counts against the cap for $150k (IIRC).

Years ago
That's probably the reason the budget is tight: they'd be running low on salary cap space after those signings.
