It was brought in for both reasons, but the 50% of income rule that was part of the cap was done away with a few years ago (not that that rule would have helped Bradford anyway). It's undeniable that the cap has helped restrict spending and that it has stopped the big clubs from signing all the best players. The extent to which it has done that and the extent to which it should in the future is debatable.


Not at Leeds it's not.
Whilst I'd agree player salaries are a large expense for clubs, they're also the most predictable expense, yet clubs seem to struggle hugely to control that expense for some reason.

How many outstanding or even very good players are there at the bottom 4 clubs? Chase - who's is off to Hull seemingly and...?
Or make a rep team from the squads of that bottom 4 and another from players at the top 4 with squad numbers >17.
It is in its way admirable that Leeds players have put success before money, but credit too to somebody like Kevin Brown for taking on a different challenge. It's tough at the top, but a damn sight tougher at the bottom.

Of course the "top" players are going to go to the "top" clubs, but it stops the top teams from having a bigger squad of "better" players. No ones suggesting that it's totally evenly spread, it's better than it would be without a cap.

1. Patten
2. Broughton
3. Moon
4. Webster
5. Robertson
6. Gower
7. Dobson
8. Taylor
9. Aiton
10. Kaufusi
11. Lauitiiti
12. Galea
13. Kirmond

14. Chase
15. Amor
16. Huby
17. Nero

Not too bad a team, all from clubs in the bottom 6 teams. If there were no salary cap the vast majority of those players would be at the "top" clubs. I know Broughton and Lauitiiti would still be at Leeds if it werent for the salary cap.

The salary cap is 'live'. Its monitored by the RFL monthly. Why do you think no one has breached it for the last few seasons?

They didn't seem to monitor it until it went wrong at [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/28/blackpool-panthers-docked-10-pointsBlackpool[/url or
until a player went public at [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/15212305Barrow[/url
Both in 'the last few seasons'

That's true, but building a successful side is one thing, building a successful SPORT - one that can attract sponsors and more fans at home and abroad, is another. I guess I'm not a purist, but to make the sport successful, you end up 'overpaying' relative to someone's talent on the field. Because what you're really paying for (if you're smart/lucky enough to make the right business call) is the number of replica shirts you might shift, or the new sponsor who'll take an interest, or the newspapers that put your club (and RL) in the limelight for a few weeks, and maybe more. Gavin Henson, for example, would be that kind of player.

Look at soccer. Are *any* of the players at the top clubs technically 'worth' their wages in terms of playing ability? No, that would be impossible. But, rightly or wrongly, some clubs see those players as 'investments'.

Oh absolutely - it's a question of degree though. The cap as a tool for distributing talent has been only an equivocal success IMO. [uMuch[/u better than nowt, but it's disappointing that even with a cap smaller teams can't sign or retain the odd top player. That team illustrates my point, IMO. You had to go from bottom 4 to 6, it still looks pretty ordinary and relies on about a dozen imports.

I was talking about SuperLeague.

Barrow was a completely different situation anyway.

Why?

Because it wasn't just down to poor administration errors, it was due to downright cynical cheating and illegal cash payments.

If the RFL don't take the salary cap seriously, then how or why were Barrow and Blackpool punished...?

In answer to the title of this thread I would say No. The Salary Cap Model needs adjustment combined with a restructure of the game.
We probably have a few clubs clever enough to work around the cap, we also have a couple of clubs taking great risk to spend up to it. We also have the external attack of the cap from Union and NRL.
I would like a scaled enhanched salary cap based on factors of asset/profit values, player development etc.
For example a club that has poor revenue streams, low attendances no youth development and relies on 8+ "overseas players" will have salary cap deferred until the club improves in these specific area.
A club that has good asset value and profit, provides international players and minimal overseas dependancy to receive full cap.
Our biggest problem is the overspend of overseas players which have no asset value and the RFL failure in giving the game Global Stature so that the clubs can benefit from a strong structure.

Double edged sword.

Condense the talent pool into 12 clubs = 2 less home games to generate income from.

Leeds, Hull and Wigan have regularly posted profits over the last 5 years. Which is not that surprising given their gates.

Best answer in the whole thread IMO

Best answer in the whole thread IMO

Nice in theory, but if you reward the high achieving clubs and punish the low achievement clubs, the cycle can only continue. The high achieving clubs spend more, are more successful on the field and can attract more income. The lesser clubs cannot spend more so cannot improve their on field fortunes so are unlikely to make any commercial improvements.

The RFL didn't discover the Barrow cheating of the cap. They were informed by an outside party. Same at Blackpool.
In the NRL neither Canterbury or Melbourne were found to be cheating the SC by the administrators there. They were informed by outside sources.
The RFL and the NRL do not run a good enough systems to ensure all clubs adhere to the SC.
As I mentioned previously, until the RFL check the tax returns and bank accounts of players then the SC is a complete and utter waste of time.

And then there are always ways around it with non direct income. Les Catalans employing wives and girlfriends, 3rd party appearances, house rentals, 0% car loans at trade price etc etc.

All of which are covered in the SC regs , all these things are not allowed

But like most things it depends who you are, Celtic Crusaders had 17 full time players being paid by the RFL via community development grants including cars and accomadation, all on a SC of 250 grand

We are all equal, just some are more equal than others

Those things are allowed.

There is nothing in the SC regs which says wives and girlfriends cannot have jobs working for the club, players cant be paid for 3rd party appearances, they cant rent houses or get a good deal on a car.

There is specific provision for players to do community development jobs and other jobs in the club.

Then the rules have changed, and they certainly didnt allow such things in 2007 in the NL s / Championships,

its all because bradford can not afford to live

Bin the cap BUT:-
(1) No club should be allowed to borrow any money at all. Directors loans included. Any cash input from directors ect must be gifts & not a liability to future investors or owners.
(2) only 25 registered players on the books.
(3) No accadamy or reserve teams? that would be the job of the locall amature sides for juniors or by recruiting from the lower leagues thus ensuring the money passes down through proper transfer payments.(I would still alow schoplarship schemes where local youngsters are brought into the club from amature clubs for training & mentoring but they would be required to stay with thier club as ther has been a drain on locall sides with the pro clubs stripping the heart out of amature sides) This would also force clubs to invest in the training of youth coaches in the local areas wich is the most important area of the game.
(4) any club going into debt, breaking spending rules should have its franchise removed for ever. any player coach or official knowingly assisting a breach of the rules should also be banned sine die.

That would be the end of investment in stadium upgrades/new stadiums then.

Very good, just worked out who could survive under those constraints, Wigan and Leeds perhaps. Is this the destruction of Superleague in 4 easy steps.