The sport will be finished long before the rest of SL get to our level. There is competition from outside of SL that is already above our level and will keep getting further away if we wait for the rest to catch up.

IL and Hetherington have similar views precisely because there are only 4/5 clubs that can afford the current cap - meaning that all they'd do is fight amongst themselves for the same players.

I suspect they're also conscious of the fact that if the cap was raised, a lot of it would go to bog standard players. The idea that the entirety of any cap increase would go to lure/keep star players is a nonsense. Historically its always led to generic wage rises, including for those that TBH don't actually 'deserve' it on the basis of what they bring to the game.

Not a good example as Arthur (rip) was involved with our club (Wigan) when we were at a very low ebb.

Wigan RL fandom - the only place where, overnight, a few casual utterances by a chairman famous for never revealing his full hand can be elevated to a national crisis.

And what would the point of that be? The issues being discussed in this thread are going to affect the game over the coming seasons and even if we win both the CC and GF these issues aren't going to go away and it won't stop our best players following Mossop. Are you are going to happy if Wigan are successful in a poor competition? Some people come across that way but I am surprised you appear to be one of them.

It will get to a point of saturation of players either going to NRL or RFU. firstly they will only be the very best that we have and are affordable. It could end up that every player likely to represent GB or England are actually playing in the NRL ( I think this is an extreme).
The long term prospects are the ones to worry about, in this modern age awareness is greater through media coverage and internet, young lads might see that Rugby League in the UK is a poor career choice and actually switch to playing Union. The benchmark for the decline in league if there is one would be the amateur clubs, how many are struggling to fulfill fixtures due to lack of players and how many are scrapping under age teams, this is where the future profeessionals will come from.

Once the roots begin to die it isn't long before the plant collapses.

They do already. An increased cap would allow them to compete for them with offers from the NRL.



What is your point? In the NRL they have a minimum wage for players in the squad number 1-17 of $60,000 AUD (£40K) and $55,000 (£36.7K) for numbers 18-25 and I think this is about to rise again. This is to prevent clubs skewing the cap towards their star players (something clubs have to manage for themselves here which IL did and Leeds have done for a while) but the obvious side effect is the NRL's "bog standard players" are also going to be on good money. Of course an increased cap would raise wages across the board. That isn't a problem as it isn't just the star players that are underpaid in the UK.

Dave, you and certain others have been predicting disaster for Wigan since the arrival of Ian Lenagan. You've jumped on every little thing as if it's some kind of vindication of your position. And yet still that disaster hasn't occurred. In fact the club looks healthier than ever - which suggests to me that he knows more about professional sport than you do.

I don't agree with him on the Salary Cap either (though likewise I don't believe it can be raised in isolation from other key changes, which certainly couldn't happen overnight), though that's just about the only thing I don't agree with him on. The way you and some others keep hitting the panic button in this very public forum would be hilarious if it wasn't so embarrassing.

A work friend of mine has a grandson who plays in the saints academy team.. they were advised by an ex superleague chairman that should they be offered a contract to go and play union then take it with both hands... it doesnt fill you with confidence for the future of our sport when things like this are being said

? The two points are completely seperate.

One was an opinion on an untried coach (that I later said was proven to be incorrect)

The other was an opinion on the current chairman which has been proven correct via his own words

Now what exactly was the point of your post?

I fundamentally disagree and here is why:

RL owes it's very existence to the fact that it could offer a financial advantage to those playing it versus Rugby Union.

For 100 out of the 120 years you quote, RL has had this advantage handed on a plate to it by the continued insistance by RU that it remain amateur. In effect RU was crippling itself and handing this advantage to RL.

It is this advantage and this advantage alone that enabled RL to punch above it's weight in terms of attracting many very good players, despite being, essentially, a regional game played in 2 Northern counties.

Without the above RL would never have had players such as Jonathan Davies, Martin Offiah, Billy Boston, Jim Sullivan etc

Even "home grown" players would have left RL very quickly if RU hadn't artificially penalised itself. Do you honestly think that Hanley would have stayed in RL under the current structure?

The reality is that now the equilibrium of rugby in the UK is essentially back to normality in terms of purchasing power between RU and RL.

RL, if it wishes to compete in this new reality in terms of talent, far from penalising itself through essentially cutting the CC year on year in real terms needs to again "punch above it's weight".

One way is to have chairmen who "dip into their own pockets" to fund the clubs.

Or we could just run clubs to break even. There is nothing wrong with this approach, as long as everyone is aware that the talent on display will be of lower quality. In the future it will be a case of, if you want to see real talent in the UK you will have to go to a RU game. If you are happy to see average talent (probably coached up to a "good" standard) then RL will be fine for you.

IL has seemingly chosen the latter. Many on here agree with him it seems - Cruncher seems a little confused as to the point he/she is making, but overall seems to agree with IL.

Personally I would prefer the former option.

If young lads are looking at sport as a Profession and are suited to playing a form of rugby be it league or union then they have a decision to make. Play league become exceptional and hope to be snapped up by the NRL who can pay twice as much (only the very best will be lucky enough for this as the southern hemisphere do produce a lot of their own talent) Play Union be mediocre and still earn more than playing league.

To compete on a level playing field rugby league need to raise it's profile and income as a whole to raise the salary cap. There are not many owners who will throw money into a black hole year after year to fund a team, some of them are buisness men not philanthropists

That is an outright and barefaced lie.



I don't have a "position". And before you mention it (surprised you have not already) I don't have an "agenda" either!



How can you disagree with him on the salary cap when you come out with comments like "...he knows more about professional sport than you do"? Or do you know more than IL on this issue?

Given this is a thread on the salary cap and you don't agree with his stance on it either why do you feel the need to go off at a tangent and accuse people of things they don't do? If you recall the thread on the recent press conference I agreed with Exiled Warrior on several good things IL has brought to the club so just what are you on about?

Sorry, I forgot ... you're the guy who doesn't like him personally, even though you don't know him.

Yeah, your opinions on IL are definitely worth listening to.

Give over, Dave. Talk about me 'methinks you protest too much'.

You and your usual partner-in-crime on this matter have regularly been as skeptical about IL as it's possible to be, and yet the club is in a better place than it's been since the early days of Mo (and probably at half the cost).

I don't like the salary cap either, as I've said many times, but having a tantrum because the Wigan chairman thinks it can be made to work is a bit rich even for you and BK.

does anyone think that IL may be playing a huge game of poker here, raking in the money for the players on the basis that at some stage the NRL / RU Club bubble will burst ?

Hard to imagine this would happen but things like this do go on in the general business world.

Just a thought

I agree. I have repeatedly pointed out whenever this debate surfaces that the sport needs to increase its revenue as to rely on philanthropic owners is not a long term solution. Salford may benefit from it in the short term (if the cap were raised) but I am pretty sure even Koukash won't chuck money at the club for decades if overall he is funding a loss making club. Getting the clubs on a sound financial footing is one thing but having done that as recent events at Wigan show that doesn't mean you are immune from losing players. What is needed is a bigger injection of cash into the game from outside and as I have also said numerous times before the obvious place to look is TV. This is where both RU and the NRL are getting most of their income. Not off gate receipts and shirt sales etc. Whether we have the right people on board at the RFL to do this I don't know but I don't think comments from IL about not wanting to raise the salary cap set out the right kind of ambition whether we do or not.

RL has a choice and it is does it want to be a financially viable career for most players as well as competing for the best players or does it just accept it won't attract young men of potential and mitigate losing its best players as best it can? At the moment IL seems to be operating in "mitigate mode" and some people seem to think this is OK because we are top of the league and because he announces we will see Mossop again in two or three years time IF he doesn't stay in Oz.

This is more utter b@llocks from you regarding my position on IL and what he does. I have been on record about how good the Orrell facilities are, how well IL has done with repairing the image of the club and numerous other points. As I said I agreed with EW only the other day on the things they pointed out as positive aspects of his tenure here. I have certainly not been "predicting disater" as you put it in the post I replied to. (Your backtracking and current accusation of merely being a skeptic are duly noted).



I know you don't like the salary cap but in your rush to have a go at me and BK you are now having to defend IL's current approach which is really quite funny.

The only tantrum I can see is from you flinging false accusations around. I am merely voicing an opinion as to why I disagree with his comments in the article linked to at the start of this thread. Perhaps if you kept on-topic you wouldn't feel the need to preface your posts with the personal comments?

If you read the article its clear his way of getting the salary cap to work is to put in place a proper wage structure. I have no doubt that is a good thing in itself and that it works in that sense but I have no idea why that is a reason not to raise the cap, why that will help retain players or attract them in the first place. There is nothing in that article from IL that tells me why whether Wigan have a proper wage structure or not that the salary cap "works" as you put it in that regard.

Salary cap and a proper wage structure are perfect in regards to Super League as all the teams have to work within the same monetary restrictions. But we are now having to compete with the NRL and Union to keep our best players. We might be able to pay a star player £400k but that leaves less for the rest of the team and could weaken us compared to other SL clubs and it is still a lot less than a world class player can earn in the NRL and Union.

Unless we can offer what the other 2 organisation can then we will see less world class stars playing in our competition and this can only be achieved by greater funding from outside the game in the way of TV revenue and sponsorship....

I agree with you on the "how" we need to fund an increase in the cap so we can compete. I am not daft enough to think IL can fund an increase from his back pocket but I really would like to think he was working to increasing the funding rather than saying he doesn't want the cap increased. A statement saying he doesn't agree with increasing the cap unless the game can secure more revenue (and it is working to do so) would be fine as it acknowledges the problem.

Here is another player off to the NRL:

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22350817[/url

and Wire have a similar clause to us with Mossop so I am sure that makes it all OK!

"But Wigan chairman Ian Lenagan believes it will eventually benefit the domestic game, and Cooper shares that view, adding that the fact Australian clubs are looking to England to sign players must mean that Super League is in good shape."

GOOD SHAPE..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no.....it means they can find equal quality players to the NRL and pay slightly less for them and the Player still gets more than playing in Super League.......

Its a tough one most of the comp cant afford the current cap. So increasing it for 3/4 teams defies the point of it.

Plus would paying for example Chris Tuscon more money make him a better player? I dont like the cap myself but untill we can make the rest spend the current max is there any real point.

Perhaps the rfl need to look at central contracts or the like but without a strong international game that probably wouldnt work.

First the RFL needs to get it's house in order - free sponsorship of SL -that was blinder! Until the RFL - the top tier of the game and the people "running" the game start to be a darn sight more professional the game will continue to suffer and the endless discussion about the salary cap are just a smokescreen. Central contracts will never work unless they can be funded properly - something I seriously doubt the RFL can do or even consider (unlike the RFU who can and do - or cricket who do this very well).

The game needs to start getting more money in at the top before anything else.

Clubs should also look at maximising their non-game revenue - most clubs own their ground yet these are sitting idle for the vast majority of the time - surely someone should look at investing in putting other non-RL facilities in the areas (betting shops.casinos/shops anything which can bring in revenue at other times - surely this would help clubs grow).

Then when clubs are financially viable can the salary cap be looked at as has already been pointed out only a handful of clubs can even consider spending more -which would make the club scene even more a haves and have nots - we would end up with something like the Scottish premier league.

I dont for a min think central contracts ala RU would work and even if they did your right the rfl would probably cock thqt up to. Dont get me started on the sponsorship i almost had an embolism on the subject last week.

Didnt years ago the rfl give rads and KFC some appearance mony for Gb or something so thy wouldnt sign for RU only for KFC to still not show up for GB?

I dont know what the answer is but they need to get the bread and buttrr vames back to meaning sokething and stop the cheap season tickets as that just devalues the sport.

SC should be 50% of turnover, end of

Those who make more get to spend more. Those who dont, well its their problem