Quote: G1 "Gotcha
Why do you think giving players higher wages equates to better quality rugby and vice versa?
I recall Graham Lowe's comments about the full time Super League tourists. It was alon the lines that they were soft. They turn up to training in their BMWs and then sit around all day. Lads who turn up to night training after working as a plasterer etc were much better.'"
It produces better quality for the teams that have the players.
I don't go with this argument that because players don't get the wage they want that they will go to another club, thus increasing the competition in the league. We only have to look at Australia for that, to see players leaving for a sport alien to Rugby League.
I don't see Player A leaving Saints/Leeds to get a better salary at Crusaders/Wakefield. They would have 2 options, leave the game or accept the lower wage and be dissatisfield.
The salary cap is a wonderful concept that all team sports should implement, but it should not be restrictive to the players. Like I said, IMO a decent rugbly league player should be able to earn £100k per year, and should have the opportunity to win things at the same time. I don't think that is excessive. But under the current cap limit a team can not have too many players of that level, never mind great Rugby League players.
IMO all clubs should be spending the same cap yes, but you should not penalise certain teams in order to bring them down to the level of others. It should be the other way round.