www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 14,00.html for those wondering if the salary cap does indeed work in making the competition even. of course to do that all clubs need to be spending the full amount or close to it. in around 5 years it will be the same in SL where a club will have to start losing players once it wins a grand final, rather than being able to remain on top for a period of 5 - 10 years. in the nrl you have around 3 years with your squad before you start have to shedding players, especially with a succesful team. by sharing the talent around more club will win the SL title, resulting in bigger crowsd all round and a more interesting competition where upsets are more likely.

www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 14,00.html for those wondering if the salary cap does indeed work in making the competition even. of course to do that all clubs need to be spending the full amount or close to it. in around 5 years it will be the same in SL where a club will have to start losing players once it wins a grand final, rather than being able to remain on top for a period of 5 - 10 years. in the nrl you have around 3 years with your squad before you start have to shedding players, especially with a succesful team. by sharing the talent around more club will win the SL title, resulting in bigger crowsd all round and a more interesting competition where upsets are more likely.

yeh because melbourne haven't been great for years and Sth's haven't been equally e!

There is of course an evening out but to say the NRL is 100% equal at the start of every season is nonsense. I am sure as every team gets to full spend over the next 5 years it will be more even but the UK will always suffer from overseas players wanting to sign to the club that gives them the best chance of winners medals/Wembley appearance and talented Uk players signing for clubs that give them the best shot at a England shirt.

in Oz your team isn't a handicap to rep honours like it is in the UK.

every team in the nrl bar the titans has made the semis.

fairly level to me.

and the team that wins the competition changes every year pretty much.

you dont see the same 4 teams dominating.

souths made their first semi final series 2 years ago for the first time since 1989 because they are now finally spending the full amount on players they are allowed too.

Have to agree with dally. If it works properly here it will benefit the game as a whole.

A restriction of trade [size=59 if you're a Leeds fan that is [/size

Should be dropped tommorrow

Would that be one specific Leeds fan?

who?

we shouldnt be sharing talent around, we should be in competition to get more talent of the highest quality possible, each club doing everything it can to bring in as much quality, at the highest level it possible can so it can gain competitive advantage by being the best, not by waiting their turn on the trophy merry go round and not artificial competitiveness to cover for that unavoidable fact that some clubs are run like crap and playing at a level above their potential,

the SC didnt create the Melbourne side, its just breaking it up because some clubs are a bit and cant catch up,

and what you still dont understand Dally, is that the next club to win the NRL, and the next club to have two or three years of success wont be the team which takes on the players melbourne let go, it will be the team that brings through the next Folau, Inglis, Slater, Smith, Cronk, and then that team will be dismantled, and the game in Australia will never move forward, because once a team hits a certain level of quality, the whining children will start complaining about how the bigger boys are better than they are,

the SC has made the NRL a pro sporting version of a politically correct sports day, where everyone gets a medal because we don’t want the less able to feel bad about themselves do we

this part of the article seems a worthwhile aim for us though

[iHaving pieced together and developed his squad into the competition's most dominant force over the past three years, Bellamy has been forced to watch on helplessly as his squad was torn apart.

With little compensation or reward for clubs that invest in junior development[/i




sounds like exactly what we need

[size=59or a Pie[/size

The question is do you want a high quality competition or a competitive competion.

As has been shown in Australia the standards have fallen off considerably in the last 4/5 years - that's what happens when you have a cap.

Are teams like Melbourne going to invest in youth development if they know in 3/4 years time they will have to make a choice between say Folau or Inglis? Or are they just going to say well we have 3/4 good years that's our lot for the next 5 years?

Perhaps a transfer market might help - that way clubs like Melbourne would get some compensation for the loss of a Folau?

The salary cap helps to even teams out, but one process that in-avertedly knocks the system back is youth development. Look at all of the best teams in the world and they are successful because of the ability to develop young players.

Until other teams get a grasp on how to do that, they'll never be a level playing field.

Never broke the cap yet - unlike the other winners of the GF

By introducing a rule where only say 75% of a players salary counts towards the cap for those brought through as juniors will sort it out.

Rewarding the likes of Melbourne for their investment and giving at least a possibility of retaining those players long term.

why have any kind of limit on it

I've only spent one summer in the UK, but can tell you now that the quality of players in the NRL and game is superior to that of SL. My main criticism of the NRL and RL is the amount of wrestling allowed, something which hurt england (and the amount of imports here) in the World Cup.

A salary cap means that clubs actually do invest in junior development to bring through great younger players. These kids usually play one or two seasons at a lower wage and usually end up resigning on upgraded contracts that would be below their market value should they test it out if they waited the extra year or two.

Sure clubs might lose one or two stars over time, but the cap works. Clubs dont go broke, there is an even and always changing competition (bringing more fans, everyone loves a winner) and developing juniors and 'sides' (see melbourne over the past 4 years) loyalty, club culture is important.

Yes it may be a restraint of trade, but no one has dared challenge it becuase it works. Personally I beleive it would help develop SL, more UK juniors and possibly rid the reliance on the ordinary imports you bring over here.

clubs do have financial difficulties, the same club has contested the last 3 grand finals, some just simply havent done anything at all, some clubs simply dont bother developing juniors whatsoever, some have given up on it completely,

and the standard of the competition has fallen, the game has stagnated somewhat, and the NRL has lost plenty, and i mean plenty, of its quality players to SL and RU,

The reason the NRL is more competitive, is more clubs do more in junior development, the last 3 GFs have been contested by Brisbane, Melbourne and Manly, the vast majority of these teams are made up of products of their youth systems, especially the stars like Carroll, Lockyer, Hodges, Hunt, Carlaw, for Brisbane, Orford, Stewart. Menzies, Stewart, Matai for Manly, Cronk, Smith, Folau, Inglis, Slater, Hoffman, for the Storm,

The spine of all these teams are players who made their debut with them, the salary cap had next to nothing to do with these teams being built, only destroyed

the answer isnt to stop Melbourne Brisbane and Manly from keeping these players, its getting the rest to start producing them

Yes, and the melbourne storm have a very wealthy backer. But are working towards standing alone as we speak. Brian Waldron is a very good operator and is highly regarded by sports proffesionals. With the new stadium, growing membership, sponsorship. They should be viable by the time the new TV rights deal is forged. Relative to years gone by the clubs are spending beyond their means.



It is still the premier rugby competition in the world. It may have lost a few stars towards the end of their careers, but it keeps producing new stars each year. SBW and Gasnier are probably the only two of note in recent years, a while ago we lost Lote, Wendell and Rogers (all wingers at the time). Very debatable point.



BANG! Why do the clubs invest in juniors more heavily these days? One of the major reasons is the salary cap! Speak to Michael Searle of the Titans, look at the money the spend on junior development, they realise that by building a strong junior base players are more likely to stay loyal and can produce and keep players for under market value. Junior development is a way to 'exploit' (for lack of better words) the salary cap.

Brisbane and Melbourne are good examples of development (even if melbourne are pillard from all over the country, Manly arent. Parramatta are another example of a club that develops great talent and rarely buys a big name (apart from 97). Stop picking the dreags out of the NRL and start developing your own talent here, a salary cap will help create this as well as bring a closer, more exciting competition. A level playing field will benefit all clubs and the competition.

but thats not the same throughout the competition unfortunately, whilst Melbourne are moving forward there are clubs who are undoubtedly moving backwards


and Barrett, and Lauitiiti and Buderus, and Eastwood, andHodgeson, and Whatuira and Rooney, and Gower, and Tahu



But that isnt the argument you are making, nor one in favour of the SC. The argument is that the competitivness of of the NRL is down to the SC, and that there are different winners because of the SC, and im saying it isnt, im saying that the reason the NRL is competitive and the reason that there are different winners is because they are more competitive at youth level and in developing youth between each other, they compete for the best youth and compete to make the best of the youth they have, that is down to the structure below NRL, and not the SC

if Anything the SC puts clubs off developing youth as when they peak or start to peak they are likely to lose them to the opposition




so why bother developing that player your going to lose? Melbourne are being punished for scouting and developing Israel Folau, he is going to their opposition a better player because of their investment in him, one of their rivals are a better team because Melbourne did something well, and Melbourne are a worse team for it, and this carries on until you get to a situation like that at the roosters where they have simply given up completely on developing youth and are just going to cherry pick the best of the opposition, thats one opportunity lost already



except we have seen quite clearly that isnt the case, it is the clubs who arent spending the cap, who also arent developing youngsters, and the salary cap only keeps the status quo in that effect,

the NRL is starting to see what SL has seen for the past 12 years, that the SC promotes the status quo, where did Folau go? What have the bunnies complained is their biggest problem?

players want to play for the biggest teams, the biggest teams attract the best players easier, the SC means lower clubs cant upset the applecart, they cant go out and attract the best players because the best players dont want to join Wakefield the same as they dont want to join South Sydney, meaning they have to pay more for fewer players and cant win anything to become a big side

the only thing the SC has done is stop costs spiralling, but that would happen if it was rejigged to promote youth development and promote investment in british players,

the reason that wont happen is that some clubs and their fans arent prepared to be for a couple of years to rebuild their squad, they would rather be mid table,

in the nrl there are some clubs / areas that have lots of juniors, and other areas have little or few.

newcastle, penrith and nz have lots of kids and other clubs do take from these areas.

so in a league where the salary cap works, the club with loads of juniors wont be able to keep everyone and will have to let some go to clubs that dont have juniors.

maybe its not ideal that clubs that dont have many juniors are treated equally with clubs that do, but it still shows how the SC evens up the competition

many have argued that clubs should get dispenations or allowance in the salary cap for players that were developed from the clubs juniors

your idea of SL stagnating is of course one in which crowds are pretty much rising every year.

fantastic posts.

yes, because people go to matches just to check how much the players are paid

crowds are growing in a competition which people enjoy.

crowds wouldnt keep rising in a stagnating competition.

though i guess you might be the kind of fan whose attendance at RL games would stgante if his team wasnt always succesful, hence his selfish defence of the salary cap.

who cares about the good of the game when your own rich club can be up the top all the time

attendances were rising in SL pre salary cap

clubs at the bottom of the league are no closer to winning it than they were at the start of SL,

in fact at the start of SL we had 4 clubs capable of winning the competition,in the first 3 years we had three different teams finishing at the top of the league, and another different one playing in a GF, in the last three years 1 team has finished top, and they have won one gf, and one team have finished second top twice and won the comp twice

there was 8 points between 2nd and 3rd last year, 4 the year before that, and 2 the year before that

the year before that the team in 3rd won the comp,

Leeds have won 3 of the last 5 grand finals and competed in 4 of the last 5, St helens have competed in 3 of the last 5

70% of the last 5 grand finalists have been Leeds or Saints, 80% of the last 5 grand final winners have been Leeds or Saints, 95% of the entire history of Grand Finals have been competed by Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Bradford, 100% of of the entire history of SL have been won by one of those 4 clubs,

but yes, the comp is clearly getting closer and anyone really could win it,



try as you might to paint my argument against the SC is one based on self interest (which manages to make you look even more idiotic than normal) you cant get away from the fact that the SC hasnt, and wont allow lower clubs to build a champion side,

Champion sides are built from scratch, it needs clubs to sacrifice short term pain for long term gain, like leeds did around 2000, like Melbourne did 2001-2005

Getting clubs to invest and KEEP their young players is integral to getting them competitive, if clubs follow the Leeds model, they are MORE likely to challenge Leeds, as Wire found out over the last two years

I personally dont like the salary cap. If anything it inhibits growth and puts an artificial barrier on certain club's potential. I wonder how many potential players have gone to other sports or professions because of the low wages earned by all but the players at the top. I would imagine that even some fringe SL players dont earn a great deal.

The Premier League and other European top flight football leagues are very uncompetitive (in terms of different winners) yet remain the most popular sports in their countries. The Premier League with no salary cap has somehow produced a league whereby 13 clubs are seperated by just 8 points and thats with the 3 point win system. Manchester United are said to have over 330 million fans worldwide, do you think they'd have that many if they weren't as successful? The stagnation issue doesn't stack up when you look at football where no matter what country you look at, the same few teams win the titles and the crowd numbers are still to capacity.

I guess the problem would be what would happen if we got rid of the salary cap and 1 team dominates year after year and there is no challengers ala Wigan pre SL. At least in football you do usually have a battle at the top even if a lot of the teams have no chance of actually winnig the title. I suppose its arguable how much the salary has worked anyway, I mean we've had 3 different winners in 10 years, the supposidly predictable premier league has the same number of champions in the same amount of time. Its not as if you could even talk about lowering the salary cap to give other teams more of a chance, isn't the slary cap in union twice what it is in league already. By limiting the money players can earn will just make the sport even less apealing to potential players especially in areas where football and union is already prominant.