It's more down to the salary cap limitations / exhange rates that are the problem.

As a Leeds fan I've seen the likes of Ali Lauitiiti and Brent Webb give some outstanding years in SL, Danny Burdeus, despite being the wrong side of 30, still prove himself to be one of the world's top #9s, the first year we got out of Toni Carroll was outstanding and I've also seen my team ripped apart by the likes of Lesley Vainikolo, Jamie Lyon, Steve Renouf and Trent Barrett.

Whilst some of those players arrived in the UK under slightly inauspicious circumstances, SL could still attract a better quality of overseas player than they can today. That's the consequence of a salary cap that has barely moved with inflation for 20 years, a failure for clubs to grow and a weakening exchange rate.

But you're signing Sarginson from us so look on the bright side.

Those would be marquee players though surely and therefore cap exempt?

What I would say is that often the lower standard games are the most exciting to watch. The NRL is often less exciting because the teams are so fit, so well structured, so they cancel each other out and defence wins.

Errors, poor decisons, poor fitness all promote good attacking matches.

No, it wouldn't, the players will not want to come and play in Hull in November, have a 50/50 chance that the bus gets over the pennines.

The CEO's of NRL sides will not want their box office players spending a few months in the SL at the risk of their investment.

Those days are gone, setting off at 5 am on Friday to make sure we made Whitehaven, camping in barely +ve temperatures, all for the love of the club.

Those players might be marquee today but I think the issue is that we used to get those players in without those marquee exemptions because they were able to fit under a salary cap that was both more comparable to the NRL cap and worth more in real terms than it is today.

The issue is also not necessarily one of the salary cap, but of the value of those players. You can bring in a player on whatever money you like and whilst only a fraction of that appears on the salary cap, the full value appears on the bottom line.

So does £300K for "AN Player" from the NRL today make as good a business case as £150K for a Brent Webb, Lesley Vainikolo or a Jamie Lyon given that in that same period, the sport isn't really generating any more revenue from that talent (in terms of TV, sponsorship etc)?

Aren’t they “stripping him away” from you?

Surely injuries have a lot to do with the quality of a season? There are a number of teams who have some of their best players sat in the stands for the rest of the season, and there are a number of players with niggling injuries who seem to be playing 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off.

If every team had their first choice squads available every week, the quality would be extremely competitive, but it's the nature of the beast. As the game has got faster and more physical, the injuries, and recovery times, have reflected this.

Agreed. Injuries plus the problems at perennial challengers such as Wigan and Leeds.

Injuries are the biggest threat to our game I believe. It feels like every game is tainted by the amount of quality out on the sidelines. It's having a massive effect on the outcome of games.

We know how you love an argument but no we are not stripping him away he's finished with at Wigan and therfore surplus to requirements. Jackson Hastings is hot property therefore wanted by Wigan.

Rob Lui quality required by Leeds, Tui whatever he's called is your dirty washing.

See the difference ?

Not sure if you know, but its only the premium beyond the upper limit (either £150k or £175k can't quite remember) which is not counted towards the Cap.

Mentioned by many, Hastings and Lui probably the best half back partnership in Superleague 2019 it annoys me that Leeds in desperation to stay up have broken that partnership and offered the "booby prize" as part of the deal.

Lui was leaving at the end of the season anyway. Easily avoidable if Salford could afford to keep them, should other clubs just stay away from these players just because the club they’re at can’t pay them as much?

Wanting players to stay at clubs where they won’t earn as much is very selfish given how short a RL career can be and how RL players don’t really earn as much as their efforts deserve.

We'll never know who is correct, as the concurrent seasons aren't going to change any time soon.

Cant imagine why anyone would want to watch a sport where the result could go either way because the sides are evenly matched and there is jeopardy accross the league (either in qualifying for the play offs or avoiding relegation.
Of course their is disparity between SL and the NRL, primarily down to the gulf in revenue and salary cap.

Much of difference in "quality" is due to Leeds and Wigan being "average".. If they were competing with Wire and Saints at the top of the pile, this thread wouldn't have been started.
The return of relegation has meant that, with Saints being nailed on for the LLS and London being competitive, much of the focus has been on relegation rather than the GF but, this will shift back to the GF later in the season.
Finally, although there have always been injuries within the sport, there does appear to be way more injuries in the last 2 or 3 seasons then in the earlier years of SL, which has left many sides playing with "half a team" which will also cause a drop in quality and it's no coincidence that both Saints and Wire have been relatively injury free for most of the season and it's hard to know just why there appears to be such an increase.
Many of the sides in mid/low table have regularly had 6-8 players missing from their first choice 17, which is huge.

I'd say, having spent a decade over here watching the NRL after nearly a decade watching SL, that the games are light-years apart and whilst I don't believe the NRL has improved, SL has gone backwards.
The reason for this, IMHO is the constant tinkering with systems, start-up clubs not being supported/welcomed, the threat of relegation and duel registration.......put plainly, the NRL "does exactly what is says on the tin", whilst SL is whatever it thinks SKY TV want it to be.
If we want players to stick with League, give them security, no relegation, mandatory youth and reserve sides and if SKY insist on the insanity of Thursday games, then make them bloody pay more....there's NOT ONE SL GAME this Saturday or Sunday......how insane is that?

Is no games on Saturday or Sunday really down to Sky though? They show 1 game on Thursday and 1 on Friday (providing Catalans are away)....the other 4 games come down to the preference of the clubs, Leeds barring the 1 or 2 games always usually prefer Friday nights for home fixtures regardless of Sky. Others prefer Saturday/Sunday but are either away this weekend or just have gone for Friday instead.

If they’re evenly matched because both are top draw then yes, if both are even because one team is being held back by the cap and dragged back to smaller clubs level then no.

Wimbledon is on now, do you think in the first round or two more people were interested, both in attending and watching on tv) in a match between guys ranked 28th and 30th in the world or Federer vs a guy he’ll cruise past in 3 sets?

I agree the salary cap is a key difference between SL and NRL but i’d also throw in there they play less games. Now I don’t follow the NRL too closely but I don’t seem to hear stories of 5/6/7 clubs at a time having huge injury lists of 8/9 first teamers out for a long period of time like you do in SL nowadays. Is our fixture list too long and not giving guys too long a break between seasons to rest, recovery and get fit and fresh for a new season, as well as a longer preseason to work on individual and team skills.

What about your so often lauded junior production line.
Not content with hoovering up the "best" of the local talent, Leeds have to plunder their rivals to try and keep their SL place.
The cold facts are that Leeds recruitment has been mickey poor and just as so many times in the past, it's now time for their cheque book to do the talking
As for Salford, unfortunately they appear to have become a selling club, relying on unearthing good players in the hope of making a profit.
This is great, whilst ever they can keep finding the talent but, should they make some poor choices (like Leeds), they will likely come unstuck.

Sadly bringing through a half back in an intense relegation battle is highly unlikely to come off even if there was a viable candidate. Leeds needed a half badly who could step up to the plate and came with a solution which seems to have done the trick at this point so fair play to the club on that. Leeds appear to have taken the cheap options far too often in recent times which is largely why they are where they are now so brushing the cobwebs off the old cheque book is more than welcome.

Watching the two competitions I feel SL has far more basic errors. The amount of knock ons and poor passes is a joke at times watching SL. I'm not convinced the quality is higher now than the past.

To be fair, most of the knock ons aren't knock ons.

Given the amount of talent the much “lauded” Leeds academy has produced over the years they are within their right to sign who they want.

Coming from a Wakefield fan who’s team has never produced anyone of note in 400 years I would just shut my mouth if I were you

We had 6 our 17 vs Cas from our academy which isn’t bad at all. Would be 7 if Stevie Ward didn’t have such bad luck with injuries and Oledzki usually features most weeks but missed out. We’ve got several lads aged 18/19 (mostly forwards) not far off the first team and you’ll see them over the course of the next couple of years playing. We’ve trusted Walker since he was 18 with such a key position at FB and Newman at 19 we’re backing so much that we were happy to offload Watkins.

Let’s not forget we were all change with the management setup late last year so they’re still working on making the squad their own. Even if we were doing better this season I’m certain Sinfield would still have made ins and out during the season as he was trying them even before Round 1 had started.

You might not want to live in a glass house too. Firstly have Leeds really used the cheque book? What big fees have we made? We had a problem position and went to a Salford to fix it in exchange for one of our underperforming own.....you know like when Wakefield got Sau on loan for Pauli. Also we’ve signed a bavkrower from the NRL midseason....you know just like Tanginoa at Wakefield. We’ve done two similar pieces of business as Wakefield did yet when we do it we’re big bad Leeds. At least your coach/owner setup have been in position for a good few years now that should see you with a squad they’re happy with. Our new setup only 12 months in and still trying to make it into their team.

Oh dear, big pseudo Saints fan drops his teddy down the pan





Leeds will do whatever Leeds want to do and yes, the cheque book is out.
When the likes of Wigan and Leeds hoover up pretty much all of the youngsters from wherever they may have played their junior rugby, where do the smaller clubs go


Kids that play at Stanley Rangers, Eastmoor, Westgate etc find it difficult to refuse the kind of money being offered to juniors by the bigger clubs so, excuse me if, despite their "greed" in mopping up the local juniors they still cant replace their last crop of local juniors.

Sorry for daring to have an opinion and get back under the bridge