another 12 super clubs,

its called evolution, we weed out what fails and build on what succeeds,

we dont hold back what succeeds for the benefit of what fails

except im not arguing that

On the contrary, I think we should encourage the worse clubs to do better. By putting rules in place to provide a level playing field in which clubs can reap rewards for improving.

so we reward failure and punish success then,

good plan, thats definately how we improve

No, what you would have is the strongest clubs at the point you introduce your new rules, always being the strongest clubs.

This is not evolution, it is stagnation.

Why don't the other clubs develop more competitive business models? Yes, Leeds can draw on a larger market being the RL club based in the largest city. (I will take London out of the equation as they are an expansion team away from the heartlands). St Helens is not a big town yet has a dominant RL team. Surely there is nothing to stop clubs in similar sized towns, which most teams in SL are, developing as successful teams.

youre wrong

Retaining the % element of the cap would reward improving as it would allow them to spend more on players as their turnover grew.

But if you want to shackle clubs from improving then let it be.

Yes, I'm sure the Directors of all the other SL clubs will go out tomorrow morning and do just that.

Right, that's that sorted then. Next!

I disagree.

Who said it would happen overnight? But surely you aren't saying they should be shackled from doing so.

How is failure rewarded by a level playing field?

How is success punished by a level playing field?

Correct, why would you think I'm suggesting any business should be shackled from developing "more competitive business models"?

By dragging successful clubs down to level of badly ran ones.

By not allowing those who have developed strong business models and thus high turnover from being allowed to spend a certain % of their income as they wish because the poorly ran ones can't match it.

Why is wage inflation a good thing? How does paying players more equate to improving?

Because he said so Bill

Well you don't agree with getting rid of the ceiling amount. Thus agreeing to a shackle.

I refer you [url=http://viewtopic.php?t=391872here.[/url

What clubs have been dragged down? How? I don't see any successful clubs failing.

Woo hoo a ' link '

So the cap's not working then? May as well scrap it.

Surely an Oxymoron

You misunderstand. In reference to Smokey's idea I suggested that other clubs would need massive financial input, otherwise the strong clubs when the changes are implemented will always be the strong clubs.

Competition could not be achieved otherwise. The other clubs would not have the luxury of time (which you agree is necessary to develop new Airfix, sorry, business models).

Your superclubs will attract players who want to win things and in addition be able to buy the cream of the emerging talent at the other clubs, thus retaining their position and consequently, stagnation of the competition.

I'm glad you agree that the no clubs have been dragged down by the cap. Clearly as the cap was never intended to (and would never) drag clubs down I don't think you can say it is not working for not doing that.

We'd have a small number of clubs winning everything without the salary cap?