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.

Wigan have one of the worst Balance Sheets in the league. It would just be Leeds. Beverley red has obviously never run a business - debt isn't a bad thing, it is vital for investment. It's only bad if you can't service it.

So which clubs have borrowed to build a stadium? Only Saints as far as I can see

My point is that most clubs can't service debt the only real cash in the game comes through SKY & gate reciepts & most clubs are struggling if they dont have directors putting in cash. I have no wish to stop that but any cash they put in should not be secured as a loan on the club's assets. The only thing they should have is shares in the club that they can sell if they wish, if they manage the club well the shares will be worth money to buyers if they dont manage well the shares will be worthless but at least the club wont go under if they pullout.

The fact we still have 3 or 4 clubs only dominating shows to me that there is no way the salary cap is being stuck to. Compare the spread of talent in SL and top player movement compared to the nrl.

I don't think it proves that. Partly some clubs just can't afford to pay full cap. Meanwhile the existing top clubs get better value for money - they benefit from being able to pay the best players rather less than aspirational clubs - players are fairly mercenary but they also want success and to play for the top teams. They also have the best academies so can get young players from that pool relatively cheaply, and can also pay them less as they progress through the ranks.

You are comparing very different business models between SL and NRL. I am not aware of anybody in the NRL, not spending the full cap amount. SL is probably fifty percent of the clubs maxing out on the cap.

Cronulla and Penrith were not spending full cap until recently. My understanding is that around 75% of SL clubs are spending full cap (or more!). Reality is if it was legit you would see the talented up and coming players being offered more by the lower performing teams and see a lot more movement of talent around the League. I agree to some degree that players want to win trophies but they would rather get 25k a year more I am sure!