Fact, 56% of the World Cup England squad was developed by 3 clubs: saints Wigan and Leeds. (This rises to 60% if you include those in the original 25 man squad.)

You are right, the top clubs will be the biggest benefactors of the home grown rule changes on the salary cap. But not because of poaching. But because the majority of top clubs top talent is home grown, meaning they will have more money to spend on the cap ever before.

My club, saints, for example, could have graham, roby, Amor as it's starting row in 2015, who are all (could be in amors case) internationals. Graham and roby alone is easily 400-600k of someone's cap, but instead will count as 200k leaving a lot more to strengthen even further.

As for losing players to the nrl, with youth development in place, you can lose tomkins, and simply replace him with Hampshire when he's ready, a strong enough development program can help you deal with it,

The top clubs won't be caught until clubs are forced to spend on youth development like saints Leeds and Wigan have chosen to do - the rule change isn't designed to make the gap closer, it's designed to try and encourage people to actually develop in the same way these clubs have, and by doing so then be able to compete.

I believe that Saints new scrum half will be capable of giving the team a distinct advantage over most with his field kicking. Having watched him in the NRL for the past three seasons i believe he is a match for most in this art within the NRL and if they play to his strengths and escape an injury list like last seasons I can see Saints doing very well indeed.

Mose Masoe will ad a lot to their pack and with these two players into what was already developing into a decent side towards the seasons end they will almost certainly be thereabouts and I favour them to take top position with a run of luck, something that all teams require in the long run.

1. St Helens
2. Wigan
3. Huddersfield
4. Leeds
5. Warrington
6. Salford
7. Hull
8. Catalans
9. Hull KR
10. Widnes
11. Castleford
12. Bradford
13. Wakefield
14. London

Hull KR will finish 7th with a solid super league season only distracted by a successful challenge cup campaign.

But we've seen movement within that top group of clubs. Whether it's Leeds 10 years ago, or Warrington moving up, Bradford dropping down, now Huddersfield pushing the top clubs. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that the GF will probably be won by one of 4/5 SL clubs next season. Either Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Warrington or possibly Huddersfield. Is 4/5 with a good chance of winning out of 14 clubs actually that bad? I'd say it's pretty good in pro sport. The Premier League will be won by 1 out of a max of 4 clubs (Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea), yet people don't complain at that league being uncompetitive.

You say the salary cap and the overseas quota don't stop teams dominating. Well for starters the overseas quota isn't in place for that reason, it's there to try and stop clubs reliance on overseas players. The salary cap most definitely does stop teams dominating. Hence 4 different teams topping the table in the last 5 seasons. The salary cap has 2 reasons for being. 1 is to spread talent around (which it does, otherwise the top clubs would stockpile players) the other is to try and encourage clubs to spend on areas other than the first team wages (which it also does with varying success depending on the club).

The Homegrown salary cap allowance benefits all teams equally whilst encouraging clubs to invest in youth production. It allows 1 Club Trained players' salary to be exempt from the cap up to a max of £50,000. If anything that benefits a club like Cas or Wakey since the player they produce has up to £50k exempt from the cap with them and not with any other club, making it harder for another club to sign that player.

If Koukash was "tricked" into buying Salford then he's even more stupid than his fake twitter account. People are all for reasonable discussion about the salary cap. Things like dispensations etc. but for Koukash to come in and start throwing his toys out of the pram is just daft and shows he (and those who think getting rid of the cap is a good idea) don't understand the reasons for (and effects of) the salary cap.

It's there to stop 1 team running away with it year on year - Done
It's there to try and encourage spending on other areas - Done (at least at some clubs)

1) Warrington Wolves
2) Wigan Warriors
3) Huddersfield Giants
4) Leeds Rhinos
5) St Helens
6) Catalan Dragons
7) Hull FC
8 ) Hull KR
9) Salford Red Devils
10) Widnes Vikings
11) Bradford Bulls
12) Wakefield Wildcats
13) Castleford Tigers
14) London Broncos

SL - St Helens
CC - Warrington

Yeah there has been different teams at the top of the league in recent seasons, but what does finishing top mean today? It means you get a shiny hub cap. Are you remembered as champions?? NO. Name the grand final winners of the last 6 years, then you'll truly see how the cap doesn't work. IMO the rules in place are there to keep the top at the top and the bottom at the bottom. Big sides with more money better facility's, bigger academys, are always going to entice the best young talent from the game. With relegation coming back that will take away the ethos of building a team from the ground up and pumping money into youngsters.

Small clubs are going to revert back to panic buying and anything they can to stay up, at the same time again making the top stronger and the gap wider! Only 4 sides have won Superleague in the last 18 years, compare that to the nrl and it shows how competitive the Aussie league is compared to ours.

As for Koukash, he said it himself on the radio he was tricked into buying Salford. He wasn't aware of any cap or restrictions. Why would new money like Koukash be willing to buy into a sport where he/she can't do what they want to do with there sides, not to mention our cap being half the NRL'S cap and even less when you bring union into it. Superleague quality has been going down and down each year recently, in his opinion the influx of a few world renowned players could give the game the lift that it needs.

As for stopping one side running away with it, how many times did Leeds win the league in the last 7 years? Also as I said earlier on in the thread, how can you expect a team fighting for its SL life to spend money in any other area than the first team? Its ok for the top 4/5 clubs there's not a chance they will go down.

Since the introduction of the salary cap we have had 4 teams win SL, in the two years immediately prior to the introduction of the salary cap we saw 4 different clubs contest the grand final. They were the same 4 clubs.

In the 14 seasons we have had the SC we have had 4 SL winners ,in the 14 seasons prior to the cap we had 4 different winners. In the 14 seasons we have had the SC 8 different sides appeared in the CC final, in the 14 years immediately prior to the SC 10 different sides played in the CC final.

The salary cap was sold on three basis, that it would stop teams dominating (it hasn’t) that it would stop teams stockpiling talent (the 25/25 does that) and that it would keep clubs solvent (it fails hugely and was always likely to)

This salary cap, in the form it has been and that it has now taken is an unmitigated failure, it is a blunt instrument trying to perform precision tasks. It is a disaster that damages our game and sees the best players excluded from our competition, it has made our competition second rate and second choice.

You're missing the point, 4 teams dominating is 100x better than 1 team dominating, imagine, in the current media environment how second rate the sport would look if Wigan went on an 1980s run again? Any competition is better than no competition. Without the salary cap all that would happen is it would be a genital measuring contest for club chairmen, with the winner merely the one who lasts longest, the sport as a whole would be in a whole worse state. Imagine the entire game being in the state Bradford is in right now. That would be the result.

The reality is we have 5/6 teams capable of winning. It only takes 1 clubs to break the psychology of only 4 teams can win it, whether it be Warrington Huddersfield or anyone else, they are CAPABLE of winning it, and that's truer than in most sports.

The salary cap depends on owners recognising what's good for them, limiting player spending is great in theory, but means owners lie to be able to spend up to the maximum. Remove the owners ability to lie, rigidly stick to within what they are capable of, far less wakefields and Bradford's happen.

In the 14 years of Salary cap we have had Leeds, Bradford, Saints and Wigan win the GF, in the 14 years prior to that we had Wigan, Saints, Bradford and Widnes and Halifax.

In the challenge cup under the SC we have had 5 different winnners, Wigan, Saints, Bradford, Warrington and Hull, prior to the SC we Had Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Sheffield, Halifax.

In the challenge cup under the SC we have had 5 different winnners, Wigan, Saints, Bradford, Warrington and Hull, prior to the SC we had 6 Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Sheffield, Halifax, Cas.

In terms of numbers, pre SC, Wigan won 8 challenge cups, Saints, 2, Leeds 1, Sheffield 1, Halifax 1 and Cas 1. Post SC Wigan won 3, Saints won 5, Wire 3, Bradford 2 and Hull 1.

Pre SC Wigan won 9 league titles, Saints 2, Widnes 2, Bradford 1. Post SC Saints 3, Wigan 2, Bradford 3, Leeds 6

In reality we aren’t anymore ‘competitive’ than we were pre-SC. We see its largely the same clubs winning things, and that those clubs are traditionally the biggest ones the salary cap hasn’t effected that. In fact it is has entrenched it, and the only 2 clubs who have joined those traditionally big ones are Warrington and Huddersfield, two clubs who have had massive investment from a sugar daddy.

The SC is a busted flush, a failure.

1. Warrington
2. Leeds
3. Wigan
4. St Helens
5. Huddersfield
6. Catalans
7. Salford
8. Hull KR
9. Hull
10. Castleford
11. Wakefield
12. Widnes
13. Bradford
14. London

But Smokey, you're seeing it as a zero sum game. You're taking the years prior to the salary cap and the years after it's introduction as exactly the same with no other factors. You're totally ignoring the fact that when the salary cap was brought in the sport was, effectively, just entering the era of professionalism. You're ignoring what would/might have happened without a salary cap. Yes Leeds have won it a few times these last few years. But considering the huge gulf in finances between Leeds and the rest what do you think would have happened if there'd been no cap? It also doesn't show Leeds as dominating the league. If they had then Leeds would have finished top of the league in these seasons and also won the cup.

We can create as many stats as we want, for instance Wigan winning it 7 times in a row whilst also winning the cup in each of those years. We've never seen that under the salary cap. But either way, it's not about comparing it to the past, because the past isn't what we have now. It's about comparing a salary capped SL to what a SL with no salary cap would be like. Which, in my opinion, would be a league dominated by 2 clubs, Leeds & Wigan. And when I say dominated I mean those 2 clubs being the only contenders for any trophy. It will also lead to a much reduced focus on player development, academies, backroom staff, facilities & sport science in the rush for spending on first team players.
The league and the sport, in my opinion, would be in a far worse state.

You are picking and choosing your stats to fit your argument. You cant on one hand argue that im ignoring the implementation of full-time professionalism when comparing pre SC to post SC, then go on to use Wigans success as a defence of the current SC.

If anything my ignoring the advent of professionalism worked in your favour, the fact we went from one maybe two pro clubs playing against Semi-pro ones, to 14 full-time pro clubs, and still haven’t seen a huge jump in competitiveness only strengthens the argument that the SC hasn’t worked.

Im sorry but this argument really holds no water, it is the invisible pink unicorn defence.

The SC needs justify its existence by its effect, the SC has not had the effect it was sold on, it hasn’t made the league more competitive, it hasn’t stopped clubs going bust and it hasn’t stopped clubs stockpiling talent (something else does that), The SC has failed to do what it was supposed to, it is a failure.

The fact that something else, could possibly be worse, even though it didn’t prove much worse when we did have it, and we also have a multitude of other options is not a strong argument.

What we can say for definite about the SC is that it has caused huge depression in player wages, and that we have seen more players go to Union and the NRL and less quality come back the other way.

You are also drawing something of a false dichotomy, in that we have a huge amount more options than the SC as we have it and completely unfettered spending on wages.

It should also be noted that the ‘golden generation’ of Leeds players were in and around the Rhinos prior to the SC’s implementation.

Please please please!!!

Which is exactly what I said




Only if you think we have 14 equal full time clubs. We don't. We have about 5/6 clubs who are "properly" full time pro. The rest might be paying their players as professionals, but the rest of their setup isn't.


So you're saying nothing would be different without a salary cap then? You must be. Or it can be equally dismissed as easily.


I believe it does justify its existence by its effect. You are simply ignoring factors that influenced this effect and are evaluating the cap in a vacuum.


It was worse. It led to one club winning the 2 major trophies 7 years in a row. We've not even come close to that kind of domination under a salary cap. To ignore the possible ramifications of withdrawing the salary cap is not a strong argument.


Has it? Or once again are you ignoring other factors influencing those things?


No I'm not. You are now doing your tactic of trying to swerve the argument away from its origin. If you're saying there's a better way then put it forward. But in the end some form of either wage/cost restraint or prevention of player stockpiling is going to be necessary. If we got rid of the salary cap tomorrow how many clubs could afford to spend more on players? How many clubs should be spending more on players rather than on club infrastructure?
Do we want Dr Koukash or Ken Davy spending another million or 2 on players? Whilst they might attract 1 or 2 "better" Aussies the rest would simply inflate current British based players wages. Now if that could be to a level where it meant SL could compete with the wages of the NRL or the opportunities in Union then I might have sympathy with that argument. But since it won't then I'd rather Ken Davy or Dr Koukash spent that money building their club infrastructure.


Yes, and some moved on and have had to be replaced year on year. Either Saints, Wigan & Leeds academies are just lucky or they spend more money on it than other clubs. Now imagine they can spend another million (or more) on first team players. They might resist that temptation. But the encouragement is to spend more on first team.

I'm all for targeted dispensations to encourage certain types of behaviour we want to see, the club trained allowance or targeting Union players for instance, but I can't see a way past having a general limit on wages without risking some clubs going stupid. I just don't trust most clubs owners to do the responsible thing and take the tough decisions.

so......1-14 people? Smokey TA...where's yours?

1. St Helens
2. Huddersfield
3. Wigan
4. Warrington
5. Leeds
6. Hull KR
7. Catalan
8. Hull/Salford
9. Salford/Hull
10. Bradford
11. Wakefield
12. Castleford
13. Widnes
14. London

Champions: Wigan
Challenge Cup: Hull KR (oh yes!!!)

But that’s what you did, you said we cant compare pre and post SC, then went on to do so by bringing up Wigans success.

But it is more professional than it was pre-professionalism. We may not have 14 equally professional clubs, but we have 14 clubs closer to professionalism than 1996.

No, im saying that we address the SC on its terms and on the effect it has had. Im saying that we don’t invent another scenario that may or may not happen to compare it to. Im saying that the proof of SC working would be the SC doing the things it said it would do. It would be the SC making clubs sustainable, it would be evening the competition, it would be stop clubs stockpiling talent (there cannot be any more proof of its failure to do this than the fact we have needed a different rule to specifically achieve this). If the SC was successful in these things it would have done them. It hasn’t. That’s why you are needing to invent a hypothetical argument to justify it. It is a circular argument that could be used to demonstrate the efficacy of anything.

We have come pretty bloody close, Leeds won 6 of 9 SL titles, appearing in one more GF, with big injury problems in 2005, 2006 and 2010 the years they didn’t win and appeared in 6 of the 14 Challenge Cup finals. C'mon this is sport, the bounce of a ball, an injury here and there makes a big difference.

We had more different trophy winners pre SC than we did post.

To invent the possible ramifications of the SC also isn’t a strong argument. The only evidence we have for your assertions that the advent of professional RL with no SC would have made the competition less even than it is now is the 4 years we had full time professionalism and no SC, were we had 3 different champions in 4 years, and 4 different GF finalists in the 2 years we had the GF during that time.


Yes it has. It would be crazy to argue otherwise. It is a salary cap, the one and only thing it actually does is depress wages, everything else it was sold on was the hope of a happy by-product. By its very definition the SC deflates wages, if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a Salary Cap

There are a multitude of options, some solely aimed at talent distribution, some aimed and wage depression, some aimed and evening the competition. You are again putting forward this false dichotomy. Just getting rid of this SC, wouldn’t result in unfettered player spending, and certainly wouldn’t have to result in the scenario you painted here.

Which ones? Lets look at them, lets list them. Who are the players that have left Leeds for a better offer elsewhere? Players Leeds would have otherwise kept but the SC meant they couldn’t and so they went on to other clubs in SL? Mark Calderwood? Any more?

Im sorry, but that just isn’t a very good argument in favour of it. Its certainly an argument you like it, but its not a justification for it.

If the Salary Cap nonsense is retained:

1. Wigan
2. St Helens
3. Leeds
4. Warrington
5. Huddersfield
6. Catalans
7. Hull
8. Salford
9. Hull K R
10. Castleford
11. Widnes
12. Wakefield
13. Bradford
14. London

If the Salary Cap is scrapped from 1 January 2014:

1. Hull
2. St Helens
3. Salford
4. Wigan
5. Leeds
6. Huddersfield
7. Warrington
8. Castleford
9. Catalans
10. Hull K R
11. London
12. Widnes
13. Wakefield
14. Bradford

If this is a prediction thread, then here are mine:
GF - Wigan to beat Leeds
Top 4 - same as this year
5-8 - Saints, Catalans, Salford, Widnes
Bottom - Broncos
Curate's egg - HKR, Trinity, FC
Grim - the rest

If Daints finish 5th with this years squad I'll be surprised and very disappointed

Well, it WAS a prediction thread, but like quite a lot of topics on here, it quickly turns into a dick measuring contest.

I thought, whilst going off topic a tad, it was a half decent debate about the salary cap, I disagree with Smokey but at least he put some decent points forward.

Anyway, to keep it on topic (ish) I'll add to my league predictions by saying I reckon Kevin Sinfield will win Man of Steel in 2014. Ironically I don't think he'll have been the best player but will get it as a sort of career award. Though I believe he has deserved it in other years.

If not him then O'Loughlin.

Huddersfield and Leeds look very good squads - Top 2, Wigan and Warrington in transition with the quality of players that have left over the winter, but should make top 5. Saints will be knocking on the doorin the five. Hope FC and Catalan are genuine dark horses (7 and

. And look forward to watching the Salford circus outcome - sixth. IMO - my top eight.

I think Tomkins will be missed, the overlap/expansive play looked very ordinairy on Friday night. Bowen a different type of player.