Have we come so far in 10 years of the cap in its current form that sees 2 teams capable of winning a trophy?

We do have a team of Internationals that are far inferior to the pre cap teams.

I support the cap. What i do not support is the ristrictive nature of it in its current form, and i have yet to see a valid argument for it not to be changed it.

If it were related to turnover Wigan would be far from the team capable of spending the most on players, that along with the fact Leeds spent far more on sallaries than Wigan throughout much of the glory years of Wigan does not support your stance though so lets just sweep it under the carpet.

Funny how whenever you talk to a Wigan fan about the ills of the game, it always comes back to the salary cap, which weakens the argument. What you mean is that Wigan could afford to keep them, could rule the world again, the league becomes a one-club game again, and everyone else goes bust trying to keep up. Marvellous. I'd pay £20 for that, because it was riveting in the eighties and early nineties.

Lets imagine i am not a Wigan fan. Infact i am a rugby fan more than a Wigan fan.
What other ammo do you have.

At the moment we have had the cap for 10 years and we now have Leeds and Saints capable of winning a trophy. We have more foreign players, and a weaker international team.

In no way am i against the cap i just think it should be related to a clubs success not related to the lowest common denominator.

Slugger read my posts rather than reading what you think you see then please respond.

Quite a few different teams have actually won trophies. I'm guessing they were capable. The SL cap has been and remains less effective than it could be due to the fact that clubs have been unable to spend to it.



I wouldn't like the chances of the pre cap teams against the professionals of this era. Although that is probably not a fair comparison. Certainly in terms of the gap between the English and Australian produced players that has widened. Australia does have the benefit of a cap that all the clubs can spend to.



Removing the cap would make SL a less interesting competition. Attendances at CC matches between clubs in different leagues show the interest in non-competitive games. This would hit viewing figures and attendances. This would both directly and indirectly hit clubs' income streams. Which would be devastating to their ability to improve.



I never claimed that Wigan fans were being rational in their objections to the cap. Although I can't see any other clubs being able to get close to the spending power of Leeds and Wigan. Which would mean, in the absence of a cap, no other clubs being able to get close to them on the pitch. Which would be bad for the competition as I explained above.

Australia have a system that does not rely on foreign players, something the cap in the UK has enhanced.

I will bet you either Leeds or Saints will win all the trophies again this year.

As i asked another poster would you pay to watch a competative game regardless of the quality?

NOBODY IS SAYING WE SHOULD REMOVE THE CAP!


What i am saying is we should protect out assets, if we can financially be in a position to keep them then we should, if we are in a financial position to keep them but are unable to due to the rules of the cap in its current form then there is a real issue.

People use the Wigan line against me, yet i am supporting Leeds retaining a player who improves there team and there ability to beat Wigan.

No. However a non competitive game is a poor quality game.



Good. But you do seem to want to change the cap so it no longer serves the purpose it currently has - to help to level the playing field. Which would harm the league as a whole. Which would be bad for all the clubs in the league.



Not at the expense of the competition. Avoiding a minor loss in the short term is not worth major long term damage.



I've got be honest with you here I don't think Leeds are going to be too worried about their ability to beat Wigan.

As i said would you pay to watch me and a group of mates play a competative game?

The game is nothing without quality, the quality has suffered after an initial boost, for the last 5 years.


The purpose the cap currently serves is to harm the game.

It matters not if Leeds beat Wigan, what does matter is if one of the codes finest youngsters leaves the code, even though as a code we could keep him and not be financially in trouble, but the rules say we should let him go regardless.

How does the current cap reward youth development and initiative?

As I said, no.



I disagree. The games are generally of a higher quality. Uncompetitive matches are low quality matches.



How? I've already explained some of the benefits of the cap and the harm that removing the cap would do.



Leeds' wage structure means they will let him go as it ensures they do not over pay players. This is a good thing and is undoubtedly a part of their success. Paying players more than they are worth is not a good thing and would be harmful to the competition as I have explained.



With success. Those clubs who have tried to buy success with big name players have failed. Those clubs who have put in place good systems and structures to both bring though young players and keep experienced players have succeeded.

What an opiniated statement based on precisely nothing!

imo based on the fact that if you look at what weve got about in british talent its poor.which positions have we class british players, who would get into the aussie team or for that matter 2nd, 3rd or 4th teams. weve taken the athletism out of the game to an extent that players arnt allowed to express themselves. so im assuming that you think the games got better, where. the crowds, the entertainment the coveredge slightly. the product no.and imo the players defo no

Yes this is probably going to happen, as it has happened over the last 3 or 4 years. What you must ask yourself is why is this happenening if we have a salary cap ?

There are several other sides that have the resources and spending power of these two clubs but at the moment they can't get anywhere near them.

Wigan should not by crying like spoilt little brats because they cant spend more than anyone else. They should be rolling their sleeves up and working hard trying to emulate Leeds and Saints.

Here is a pointer to start you off, would Leeds or saints have paid such a huge salary to the clown of a prop forward that came from Bradford ?

You see what the salary cap does, is to show clubs in their true light. When everyone has to work on an equal basis it sorts the wheat from the chaff.
Salary caps will bring us progress in the game, it will identify the poor organisations that are inept at running rugby clubs and it will identify the smartest organisations that can get the best out of a fixed budget.

Well not a Prop forward but I can think of a current Leeds player on a high salary that used to wear the red amber and black.

You'll have to explain to me how this will prevent players from moving to Union. No matter how much RL can pay a player, RU clubs have far more money at their disposal than RL clubs so, surely, they'll just up the ante and offer even more to our top players than their RL club can afford.

Yes and if it is the same one I am thinking of he earns his wage unlike the coward of the county at wigan.

Exactly true.

The reasons for staying in league will include:
money
family
friends
pride
the game itself
loyalty

The reasons for leaving would include:
money
the chance to play on the big stage (6-nations etc).

We cannot match the profile of the Union game right now (and that is amuch to do with bias in the press as anything else, but that's another matter), and if we try and match Union for spending power we will come second - by a long, long way.

If Union fancy a punt at a League player, think he's good enough to make it in their game, and can convince him that he can make the big stage - then he's gone. But MOST players will just use Union to negotiate a better deal, then, on balance, they will weigh up the pro's and con's and sign with a League club on a better deal. It's the way of the world - we may not like it, but we're strong enough to survive it - as we are now anyway!

If you want a serious response, ask a serious question.

If rugby league were a competitive amateur sport, I would still pay to watch Trinity, because that's the team I support.

I would pay sod all to watch you and your mates, in fact, I would expect to be paid to attend, and how much you managed to raise would determine whether or not I even bothered.

Having read the arguments i have to agree with Jon.

off the cap and cut the cap in half

thats not really true

Does the sc guarantee competitiveness? How many points did Leigh get in sl under the sc? Leeds have won 3 of the last 5 gfs and competed in 4 of the last 5 saints have won the last 4 challenge cups outside the traditional big 4 only 1 other club has qualified for the gf in all of so we still 60 points put on some teams and we are still waiting for a smaller team to do anything of note





And you have ignored the harm having it in it's current form does to the game in terms of it's evolution by protecting faillings and punishing success and ignored the benefits of restructuring it because you are struck with the same self interest you accuse Jonh of

Leigh were unable to spend to the fixed SC limit. Their time in SL is the perfect example of what a gap in spending on salaries means in practice. Removing the current SC limit would mean more clubs being as uncompetitive as Leigh were - that would be devastating to the competition as a whole.



Which failings have been protected? Which successes have been punished? The ones losing out are the poorly run clubs who are spending to the SC limit but are unable to be compete with the well run clubs who are spending to the SC limit. This is good; it provides an incentive to them to sort themselves out.

would it, i dont remember that being the case pre 99. i remember smaller clubs like widnes and cas doingok in a none sc world

well leeds lost mathers walker murrell doherty and it now looks like smith because they cant keep them under the sc

the major beneficaries are those kept artificially close because they were slow to react all the sc has done is protected the status qou and damaged that it seems is enough for some

Right. So where was success punished? An example of punishing success is the "[url=http://www.btcc.net/html/regulations.phpSuccess ballast[/url" given to drivers in the BTCC. Expecting everyone to play by the same rules is not punishing success.



Certainly the league has benefited from being closer. However the closeness of the league is the true closeness of the league. Only if different rules applied to different clubs would that be artificial (such as said Success ballast which artificially creates closer races by hampering better drivers).

it is when 'playing by the same rules' means deliberately holding some clubs back so others can catch up, which is the over-riding aim of this salary cap

this 'level' playing field isnt level at all, a club like wakefield are allowed to spend maybe 50% or more of their turnover on wages, Leeds maybe as low as 20% there are better ways in encouraging clubs to do what we want them to do, which will lead to an even competition that doesnt include stopping the game evolving



but the SC does hamper some clubs and does artificially make the league closer, thought no by much

for some clubs the salary cap may as well not apply, they wouldnt spend more than it regardless of whether it existed or not, if a club cant afford to spend £2m on wages it shouldnt spend £2m on wages whether there is an SC or not,

some clubs can spend much more than that, it is they and only they, in differing levels that are punished, we should have trust in our clubs to be run in a well managed way, if we cant they should be dropped, like any good business, a well run club will spend as little as it can whilst still challenging, the idea that the owners of our top clubs will suddenly start spending their own money on things players they dont need is ridiculous, you dont get to be a successful businessman by spending more than you should

and if you are going to make claims regarding what they sc does you should be able to defend them when they are challenged

The over-riding aim of the salary cap is to create a more competitive competition. This it is succeeding in doing.



Paying the same amount on wages isn't level? Maybe teams that can afford to spend more on wages should be allowed to field more players. After all they can afford to.

Leeds are another good example. As jonh said they used to waste vast amounts of money failing to compete with Wigan. Now the SC has brought them to the point where they have achieved great success by doing the right things, by investing in youth, by putting systems in place to regulate players' pay and avoid overpaying players. You think this is bad?
When other clubs follow this example they will be rewarded with success and we will be rewarded with more competitive matches at the highest level. This would not be possible without the salary cap.



This is a problem. Fortunately as the competition has improved interest in it has risen and so revenue has risen at these clubs. Of course if they were getting hammered every week this wouldn't happen but the salary cap stops that.



Unrestricted spending will simply lead to wage inflation. The same players just paid more. This might stop one or two from going to Union but at a very high cost.

Having one or two clubs in a competition who are vastly superior to the rest creates a poor competition. Which is a poor product for the clubs to sell. For this reason the SL clubs agreed to limit spending on salaries to create a better competition. It is working, attendances are up, viewing figures are up. Now you want to destroy that just because another sport wants to pay one player more than he is worth?