Was signing Anthony Watmough to a four-year deal a smart business decision by Parramatta?

We are about to find out.

Make no mistake, there is plenty of intrigue surrounding Watmough’s future outside Parramatta, as rival clubs wait to see if the veteran enforcer makes it back on the field.

The outside interest relates specifically to talk that Watmough might be forced to retire with more than two years to run on his existing contract.

And most importantly, whether any payout would then be excluded from the Eels’ salary cap going forward.

Given the 32-year-old is on a reported $750,000 for 2017 and 2018, that is a significant whack of money that could stand in the way of the Eels re-signing others players, such as star playmaker Corey Norman, who is off contract this year.

We learned this week that Parramatta’s negotiations with Norman have flatlined in recent months because of the club’s salary cap squeeze.

But the word from the NRL is that if Watmough is forced to retire, because of what is deemed a “new” career-ending injury that is not due to any pre-existing complaint, it won’t go on the Eels’ salary cap.

While that would be good news for the embattled Eels, other clubs see this, potentially, as a loophole in the salary cap rules _ that could be exploited shamelessly in the future.

There is no suggestion Watmough has done anything wrong here, or the Eels for that matter.

It is just a debate clubs are having.

They have no doubts how this plays out in the coming months could impact on their decisions going forward, when it comes to negotiating new deals with off-contract senior players.

For instance, hypothetically, if the Cowboys were to offer Johnathan Thurston a five-year deal, and Thurston succumbed to a new injury at 35 that ruled him out of the last two years of his contract, should the Cowboys be penalised for taking such a huge risk?

Or if that player was Sam Thaiday at the Broncos, or Cooper Cronk at the Storm?

Or worse still, if a rival was to pinch one of these senior players by offering a ridiculous long-term deal, should they be exempt from salary cap punishment if it backfired?

All hypotheticals, but as one chief executive pointed out yesterday:

“That would be an easy way to force any player into retirement a year out and not be in your salary cap.

“By that stage of their career every player is carrying some sort of significant injury that could be deemed career-ending.”

But should you then be allowed to write it off as bad luck, or should you be accountable for taking that risk in the first place?

It’s a legitimate argument.

Rich clubs could afford to take this gamble, if they knew it was not going to penalise them in relation to the salary cap.

No one wants to see any player penalised for putting their body on the line for their club, and changes to the RLPA’s CBA conditions relating to career-ending injuries were designed with good intent.

But it is also vital loopholes aren’t exposed, because it will open the floodgates.

When Watmough originally signed, many rightfully thought, it was a huge risk for Parramatta to take.

Yet here we are, just a year and a bit into his deal, and the whisper at the Eels is that Watmough has about as much chance of playing again as Nathan Hindmarsh.

When it was first revealed in February that Watmough was considering retirement, Watmough wasted no time declaring the story was wrong.

Watmough said at the time that he “had unfinished business”, and was “planning to return in a couple of weeks”.

But to date he remains on restricted training duties, and the date listed for his return is classified as “indefinite”.

Watmough is said to have had surgery last year on a knee injury, before he suffered what is said to be a new injury during a pre-season training mishap after a collision with a teammate.

This is where the debate gets very complicated.

While Watmough is known to have had plenty of significant injuries throughout his career, including a chronic knee problem, to qualify for the salary cap exemption, the club would need to prove this latest complaint has nothing to do with any pre-existing problem.

And they will need to prove that via medical records.

There is a strict criteria in place for situations like this, designed so clubs can’t exploit the salary cap rules by offering senior players ludicrous back-ended deals.

Let’s make this clear again, it is no fault of Watmough that the Eels chose to sign him to a four-year deal.

And if he can’t get back on the field, he should be paid his money.

After all, he has a contract.

But it is also fair to say that Parra went into this with eyes wide open, knowing the brutal punishment Watmough had put his body through over 13 years at Manly.

Download SuperFan NRL - the ultimate rugby league app for iOS