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(6263)
}
}
That discriminates against clubs that can afford to pay for a good franchise player and those that can't. I thought the whole idea of the salary cap was to put every club on an even playing field. By having a franchise player, a club has individual control over what the salary cap should be because there is no difference between a salary cap of $1m and a salary cap of $750K plus a $250K franchise player. Besides that, Adelaide would not benefit from this because they barely have the money to keep under the salary cap.
I can see sponsors such as Nike sponsor a franchise player, thus paying that extra money to have him play for a team. In return this player would be promoting their products. The only problem would be that it would be Sydney to benefit from it as the sponsor would have a lot more exposure from this. Sorry Isaac, I see too much discrimination and disadvantage to lower budget clubs.