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(6766)
}
}
Of late we are seeing a side of Brett that you wouldn't have seen in the past. The frustration of what's happening around the NBL and indeed his own club is getting to everyone and he is no exception. With regards to the Dragons, I thought in the first year for a new team, they were given a salary cap exemption. For this reason they sign up players that you would never imagine to fit under the salary cap. But having said that, the Dragons are signing players on multi year contracts so its confusing as to how they will fit them under the cap the following year. All I can think of is that they offer a total package for the 2 or so years but write the greater amount up against their first year and only declaring the remainder in the following years. If that is the case, this is where the unfairness occurs. If anyone has any accurate information on this, I would be interested.