You think we have rows over selection policy now? Imagine adding the accusation "It's just a way for the RFL to subsidise their favourite clubs" …

Was it not the the year the Premier League was formed as a separate competition from the Football League? Is it any more arbitrary than asking "how many teams have won SL since 1996"?

Not sure anyone wants to create an artificially competitive league. However the salary cap aims to create a competitive league. I guess many Rugby League fans want a more competitive league because it is better for the sport, competitive games are more interesting to watch.



The better run clubs do win things. The less well run clubs do not.

the PL was formed in 1992

which means my answer was wrong and 5 clubs have actually won it since 1990

though i dont really think you can say Leeds won the PL in 1991 because it didnt exist, they won the top division which was division 1

I stand corrected.

the SC however makes it artificially competitive,




we shouldnt have less well run clubs, we should have a league full of clubs which are run very well, each striving to be better run in an endless search for improvement and a competitive edge

if we did this then the SC would be needless, but in an effort to cover for failure we brought in a counter-productive SC

It is certainly true that the salary cap makes the league more competitive. However I don't see how that can be described as artificial - it really is more competitive. Just like the rule about each team having the same number of players on the pitch makes the league more competitive.



In order for one club to be better run others must be less well run. But yes the bar should be constantly moving forward. Which, of course, the salary cap encourages by stopping clubs from attempting to short cut to success by spend more than other clubs (and often they) can afford.



The salary cap allows the well run clubs to succeed as opposed to those who have the largest financial backing. Seems good to me.

I beleive that the only salary cap that should be in place is the % of turnover element, thus stopping reckless directors putting clubs in peril whilst also rewarding enterprise as clubs will be further incentivised to increase turnover.

except it doesnt really does it,

and it is artificial because the salary cap as tool, has only one use take from the top and give to the bottom, there is no competition there, clubs arent earning this edge




why is being successful and well run allowing you to be able to spend more a shortcut?

no it doesnt, it doesnt allow any club to succeed, its aim is to make success transient, there are numerous rules which we could put in place which would stop clubs buying all the talent, there are many rules which would actually encourage clubs to invest in what we want them to invest in and clubs which grow their off the field operations should be rewarded for that, and sometimes a well run club may need to invest on the field to grow those things of it

Shall we snip Federer's strings or remove Tiger's putter while we are it?

Don't let clubs get in silly debt like football. If the salary cap helps this great. It should not however be used to give weaker clubs a foot up.

See my earlier post.

Yes sir. I agree

One of many other uses is that it stops the top from taking from the bottom. In a league where one or two clubs have far more spending power than the rest there is no incentive for other clubs to develop players as the best will leave for the money.



It's not. The other ways of being able to spend more are and they are not sustainable in the long term.



Success is transient, that's the nature of sport. The salary cap encourages investment in long term improvements rather than short term spending on players. This way the whole league can improve and move forward rather than stagnate.

I agree with that, another argument to keep the % of turnover rule. Only reatining this element of the salary will stop clubs stagnating as they will always be looking for ways t improve turnover. Having a ceiling amount which is lower than the percentage of turnover will lead to stagnation of the clubs, as they will know the maximum amount of turnover it is worth making.

really, like Gareth Ellis?

it doesnt stop players leaving the bottom clubs for top, it never has done and never will do, players want to win things, only a few clubs win things, and the SC hasnt changed this nor will it



why do you think you know what is sustainable for a club to spend?

Also, if this is your reasoning, then we shouldnt have a hard cap, but one based on turnover, surely it is sustainable for Leeds to spend more than wakefield because leeds turnover a vast amount more,





maybe you could provide us with some examples? what are these long term investments that the SC has allowed the smaller clubs to make?

New stadia.... Oh, hold the presses...

they do all the youth development aswell dont they? must be loads of long term investment there,

As not all clubs in SL can afford to spend up to the cap the SL salary cap is, currently, less effective than it could be.



Time to make your make your mind up. Either the salary cap makes success transitive and the league artificially competitive or only a few clubs win things.

Wakefield offered Ellis more than Leeds did, the salary cap had no effect whatsoever on his decision,




the salary cap aims to make it transient, but when some clubs are sooooo far behind it just gets rotated between a few

i see you have conveniently ignored giving any examples of the SC encouraging investment in long term rather than the short term

Exactly. As not all clubs in SL can afford to spend up to the cap the SL salary cap is, currently, less effective than it could be. As your example shows.



When some clubs are sooooo far behind things should be done to change that. Like having a salary cap.

Quoting the obvious to the stupid

Like develop their businesses?

erm, except the club who couldnt spend up to the cap offered him MORE money, so the salary cap had no influence on his decision, it didnt do what you said it would




like expecting them to develop their business, the SC hasnt and doesnt bring them any closer

and again you have failed to give any examples of how the SC has managed to allow clubs to invest in long term due to the SC

Aye, and a crucial part of that is improving their product. Which is SL rugby. Which is improved by the salary cap.

really? is the quality of SL better now than in 98?