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?

Nobody knows that you thick get , even you

Yes. The product is improving - more people are watching it each year.

Just because more people watch something does not mean it is better

Is it? Evidence?

It is a good indicator that it is a better product - one that more people want to watch.

I take it you're a Sun reading Boyzone fan.

I know the cap didn't do what I said it would do: 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.

In a more competitive league players would not need to move clubs to find success.

The Sun is one of the best tabloid newspapers. Boyzone is one of the best boy bands. As evidenced by their popularity. What's your point?

The way to bring a competitive league is not to encourage the crap clubs to do better not penalise the good clubs for being successful.

Popularity does not naturally equate to quality. Only an idiot would think so.

So, along with players that move to a club to win things, you want to hand teams like Leeds and Saints an even greater advantage by allowing them to outbid other clubs too! Hmmm....

So we end up with one or two superclubs and what else?

That explains Smokey then