Widnes, Les Catalans, Hull KR have won a grand total of 0 top flight trophies under the SC. Neil Hudgell will happily tell you about the glass ceiling they hit.

Huddersfield are 20 years in to Davy's involvement and have 3 play off wins in total.

Warrington have been a top flight club for more than a century, its silly to pretend they cam from a lowely place.

What players were Leeds wanting to keep who went to another SL club?

Since Cas sorted themselves out behind the scenes and started being able to spend/run close to the full cap over the last couple of years they've done well for themselves.

The salary cap would work if it was a level playing field but there's still teams that don't/can't spend the cap. Although with the new TV deal teams should be spending the full amount. What needs to be brought in with the new money is a minimum cap floor, to lift teams up.

In fact, most of it boils down to the people running clubs and handing out contracts - poorly run teams tend to do poorly and teams that give the wrong players huge contracts always do poorly.

Value is the rest of it - Leeds, Wigan & Saints for example, are not only well run but get more bang for their buck due to the number of academy products on first or second contracts at the club, players performing to a level above what they get paid meaning there's room to add in bigger name players etc.

Huddersfield and Catalans have had squads more than capable of playing in or making GF's in the past 5 years.poor Coaching or choking when it matters has ultimately cost them but they have been thereabouts, Warrington have made finals and blown it when they could/should have won it atleast once. People moaning about same teams winning it but its now up to these other sides to make that final step, but imo it's not down to playing ability as there are at least 5/6 sides at a similar level, and there SHOULD have been more different winners/finalists in recent years, that has nothing to do with the SC.

You can't blame the structure for clubs like warington and huddersfield chocking and failing to win a title. Those clubs have had the ability for some time now, warrington should have won a grand final by now and huddersfield should have contested one. It's up to them to make the final step, but the opportunity is there. The competition is more level and open than it has ever been.

The last time huddersfield contested a major final was 2009. Yet since then they've actually improved much more as a team showing great week in week consistency and beating the likes of wigan leeds and saints on a regular basis. Comparative to their playing ability huddersfield are underachieving. They should be contesting more finals.

Have Widnes, Catalans and Hull KR all improved significantly under the SC?

Who said it should be easy? They were in the 2nd division. Winning playoff games isn't the only measure of improvement. It would be stupid to pretend Huddersfield aren't a contender for trophies and they clearly have players in their team capable of being at the "Big 4". How can that happen if the cap not only doesn't spread talent but entrenches it?

Warrington have significantly improved from where they were. Again, stop being daft just because you don't agree with the SC.

You're seriously asking which players Leeds would've kept or not signed but for a salary cap?
Well off the top of my head:
Mathers, Calderwood, Walker, McKenna, Diskin, Scruton, Morley, Murrell, Jones-Bishop, Aiton.

Again, stop being daft just because you don't like the salary cap. It quite clearly spreads talent. It might not do it as much as you'd like but it certainly does not entrench it.

What it does is stops 1 reckless owner hugely inflating the entire players market and then force well run clubs from having to increase their wages bill and risk their hard-fought business position.

It's no coincidence that since Warrington, Cas and Huddersfield significantly improved their off-field operations their on-field performance has improved. Have a well run club and players will want to play for you.
Salford have proved the vice-versa for me.

Whilst the same teams might be winning it, since the Challenge Cup final moved back to Wembley 8 years ago we've had 9 of the current 12 SL clubs make a final appearance (only Salford, Wakey and Widnes haven't, but the latter two both Semi Finalists).

Salary cap doesn't include prize money, so winners can pay more and keep winning?

Whilst choking maybe the more fun way of describing why they fall apart at play-off time, there is also a pretty good chance that they aren't good enough when the big clubs take a step up at play off time. Especially when you remember that coaches like trent Robinson at les Catalans and Nathan brown at hudds have gone on to win at big clubs.

It's a nice narrative and one which tries to remove the SC from an increase spread of success despite that being one of the salary caps main selling points but the facts are that after leaving hudds Nathan brown won a gf and after leaving les Catalans trent Robinson did coaching is one thing you can't blame.

Browns' win with Saints last year was a written in the stars kind of thing probably not to be repeated in years, if ever, the way things ran for them in the play off series, i'm sure even their own fans would admit that (not that they hadn't deserved a break after all the finals losses). I wouldn't put it down to any master stroke by Nathan Brown and their fans were hardly distraught when he left, just right place at right time.

If Robinson had stayed at Catalans, imo they would have kicked on and at least have played in a GF by now, as it is i think their current coach is just not up to it and they have gone backwards, they have the playing staff to be right in the mix. Put it this way, If Trent Robinson had that group of players they would have been top 4 for sure this year. Like i say, not all about the players but getting the little things right behind the scenes too.

Your argument is based on nothing more than circular reasoning. When clubs don't win it's because of the coach, when that coach wins elsewhere it's because of fate or something else.

None of which actually go against the point. Apparently saints can 'luck' into a gf win but hudds can't even win a few play off games. This is apparently your argument against success being entrenched.

The salary cap and how it is structured not only allows the top clubs to spend more, it also ensures they get more 'bang for their buck' and it also ensures that lesser clubs cannot 'catch up' .

The irony is that when necessary those big clubs have never been shy in throwing their financial weight around. Leeds, Wigan and Saints all had no problem shelling out big sums on fielden, Harris and Sculthorpe, or making outlandish bids for lomu and sonny bill, when Jamie Lyon became available he wasn't going to wakefield, when Ali was available he wasn't going to Salford and when trent Barrett was available he wasn't going to widnes.

The factors that make Catalans a fearsome prospect on their own ground seem to operate against them when they play away. Were they to make top 4 they might be a threat under the new system; unfortunately for them, that system heavily militates against their even reaching the play offs. Cup-wise, a decent draw could see another final appearance, as it can for quite a few clubs.

Well of course they weren't. What a ludicrous supposition to make that they somehow should have been.

Why would some of the best players in the world want to uproot their families and move halfway across the planet to play in relegation dogfights in front of 3,000 people? The best players will always gravitate towards the biggest clubs, salary cap or no salary cap. Saints, Leeds and Wigan had more to offer those players than just the size of their wage packet

What the SC does prevent though is cases where one club hugely inflates the wage/transfer market to the point where only they are able to afford the best players. Imagine if Simon Moran suddenly decided in a non-capped sport that he was going to sign the best 25 players currently in SL and pay them £200k a year each, and damn the financial losses because he's rich enough to cover it. You've then got 11 other clubs in the competition in an arms race that they can't win because they're not backed by a multi-millionaire who is determined to be the best at all costs. Meanwhile, there are half a dozen internationals sat kicking their heels in the stands at the HJ every week because they can't get in the team, much like there used to be at Wigan in the pre-cap days.

get rid of the salary cap, it obviously doesn't work. Let Marwan spend huge amounts and let him buy the league leaders shield. it will improve the league. 1 up one down in a 12 team SL, no 3 x 8's. 4 team play-off. Week 1 1 v 2 + 3 v 4. Week 2 winners of 3 v 4 away to loser of 1 v 2. Week 3 Grand Final.

thats why the SC entrenched success. Because the best players gravitate towards the big clubs and it stops smaller clubs catching up.

When Koukash took over Salford he took over a club where the few good youngsters they have produced were picked off, a development system in disarray, a poor first team squad and he was expected to build a good squad whilst a) being an unattractive proposition as a club, b) spending less that their rivals, c)getting less for the money they do spend, and d) not having a very good squad to start with.

Your second paragraph does highlight a potential issue with an SC free world, but not only is it an SC free world but an entirely squad regulation free world. For instance, you could put in a rule that says at least 10 of your 25 man squad have to have made their SL debut for you, or only 10 could have played for any other SL side or NRL side. There are plenty of other hammers to crack that nut that don't put the responsibility on the players to earn less.

I'm also not convinced that such domination would be possible again. There isn't much difference between the top 5 in each position in SL so even if one club did sign what they believed to be the best 25 players, that they would be hugely better. I look at the likes of Leeds Wigan and Saints and I don't think there is a huge amount elsewhere that they are desperately in need of, or that if they got would take them that far away from the others.

Point still stands, Foran is leaving a multi premiership winning team to join wooden spoon cellar dwellers. Why? Money. If the cap is legit I can't believe a mid or lower club can't be offering players from Leeds, Wigan or st's enough money difference to entice them to move. End of day there are only so many top tier earners a club can have if they are sticking to the cap.

Maybe it's because UK players are more loyal to their clubs, and not as mercenary as the Aussies who seem to just chase the money.

My knowledge of the NRL's minimal. Are the cellar dwellers loaded? If so, any player joining up might reasonably expect others of quality to join him. Were Wakey to sign, say, Hardaker, he'd know with certainty they couldn't afford any other top players; in fact the quality of those around him would almost certainly drop as a consequence of his having signed and the cutbacks that that would require.

Salary cap is working, not Leeds Wigan saints fault they produce the best players and attract the best players, Leeds success down to exceptional run club not just spending the most money, bet there are 3-4 clubs trophy less and out off top 4 who spend more money than Leeds.

I think part of the difference is that in the NRL you know there's gonna be turnover in the teams challenging for the play offs. Cronulla went from the wooden spoon in 2014 to finishing 6th in 2015. If players are aware this sort of transformation is possible, the good players are more likely to join bad teams, because there's nothing to indicate they will always be bad teams.

If Michael Ennis was a Super League player, he would have done the equivalent of leaving Wigan at the end of 2014 to join Wakefield. No player over here would do that because what chance did Wakefield have of making the play offs in 2015?

I also think the cap seems a lot harsher over there. I know their cap is much bigger, but so are wages - you hear about clubs having to let go of players because of salary cap pressures a lot more often. Robbie Farah being forced out of Wests, Michael Jennings and Luke Lewis being let go from Penrith, Glenn Stewart and Keiran Foran with Manly. These are all pretty good players who the club would rather have kept, but couldn't justify it under the salary cap. How often do the good Super League clubs have to let some of their good players go just because of the salary cap?

You could scrap the cap but then you would have to implement a rule meaning that clubs were protected from chairpersons who like to gamble.

Saying they are financially astute does not prove anything clubs as independent businesses pose no financial risk to the individual running them, they will just borrow against club assets until the club goes bust.

This is the first year for a while there has been some stability in club finances.

It's like the shampoo. It won't happen overnight but it will happen. (Provided it is properly policed)

Players do leave top clubs to go else where and earn more money. Thornley and Harrison Hansen at Wigan, Aiton at Leeds and going back a few years Calderwood. Josh Jones, Puletua and Flanagan at Saints.

I think job security at the smaller clubs with a history of going bust, and that prize money doesn't count on the cap make players moving to smaller clubs less common.

But what is special about a sports club that distinguishes it from any other business?

Businesses in all walks of life take risks, some work and the business grows, some don't and the business shrinks - that's the whole point of raising capital and having management in place.

It strikes me that the only logical way forward from having an imposed salary cap is to have a single model of finances right across the board for all clubs - yes let's nationalise SuperLeague - come on Mr Corbyn here's a project for you

Simple business are there to make money.
Sports clubs are there to win prizes.

Do tescos care if they get team of the year. Nope. But they do care about making money.

Do sports clubs care about making money. Not so much but they do care about having the best staff and being team of the year.

In football they have so many teams they can afford for 5 or 6 to go bust as others replace them. When Bradford goes bust there was no one to replace them, same with London losing money year on year.

Then you have the lunacy of clubs going bust but fans insisting on them staying in the top.flight.

The basics for rl are we.need more players, more clubs and more fans to pay more money to allow a totally free market.

At the moment it struggles with a semi regulated market.

Sports teams are essentially not for profit. Being well run enables them to spend more money on salaries and stadia if they can, but I'll guarantee there isn't a single owner in SL who expects to do any better than break even. For a number of the owners a manageable loss wouldn't be that bad as it would be used to offset tax liabilities elsewhere - it could even be their aim.