My main concern is that what League fans may think is crazy money is just normal wages in Union.

I'll give an example:-

Ben Jones-Bishop contract requires extending, Leeds offer £95k and Leicester offer £180k with potential for £100k per year extra in the form of payment for England appearance money (i'm sure i've read Union players get £13k per cap).

No huge transfer fee as the current deal is at an end.

Union have had their fingers burned by paying huge fees but I think they'll start being a bit more clever in future.

Scruton left Leeds for Bradford for the sake of £20k per year been paid to him a two years earlier. Look what he missed out on.

He wasn't lost to league, but his motivation was money. If they want to go they will go.

A lot of fairly big Union clubs are not paying their full caps as it is though. Ben Jones Bishop, as a relatively raw outside back, with no kicking game and no RU experience would be a massive, massive gamble at £180k, and would start a fair way away from being an England candidate. If they wanted to offer that, good luck to them, but they'd be in Gotcha's "fooking stupid" territory as above.

On England appearance fees (which I stress that BJB would be in no way certain of given the players in front of him in the queue) then the impending structural review of the national side set up is, as I'm hearing, quite likely to find that this isn't value for money as even the RFU are feeling the financial squeeze.

The RFU also used to pay a contribution to the wages of RL converts. THey won't be doing that again any time soon.

The cap level is a red-herring. It's the cap's structure (and in fact its aim) which is wrong. We suffer from a lack of imagination in ways to move forward commercially. For example, as I've done to death previously - a corporate investor might think he could get a good return on paying the wages for an ageing Jonny Wilkinson to try League - advertising, documentary series, etc. Don't flame me 'cos you think that particular idea is stupid - it probably is. My point is only that *if* a club can afford it (thru benefactors, investors or whatever - but not as a result of *debt*) it should be free to innovate...PROVIDED...that no club is allowed to sweep up talent and have it stuck in the reserves. (i.e. keep ultra-tight squad limits)

The problem is that huge numbers in the game think the cap's purpose is to 'equalize' competition.

This is incoherent nonsense.

Why for example, should Wakefield by given a privileged position? If you think it through, it's grossly unfair. Clubs above them are capped, whilst we supposedly wait for Wakefield to catch up and get into a position to spend the whole cap. But hang on...if you care about equal competition, why not cap Wakefield at a few hundred K until Leigh catch Wakefield and are in a position to spend the same as them. Clubs like Wakefield want it both ways - a privileged position to give them a chance to catch the leaders. A privilege they've done nothing to earn and a privilege they wouldn't agree to extend to Leigh (say) if the boot was on the other foot.

If they want the rest of the League to wait for them to make commercial advances, my first reaction is "you've had long enough and failed, tough", but if we decide to give them another chance, then OK, give them a deadline. "Average gates up 20% or you're out". This isn't actually an anti-Wakefield (or any small club) post. IF they amd the RFL are prepared to accept that the rest of League can be allowed to move forward then there's no need for such an ultimatum.

What makes Wakefield any more deserving of our special treatment than Leigh?

I would bet all the money i have! All the Tea in China and my left nut!! That once again Scroots would have been left thinking what a daft, stupid thing he did! there is more chance of me getting a start for the rhinos than scroots winning a medal again.

His extra cash will be no consulation to him in october again.

He could always use his extra cash to buy one of Keef's medals on eBay?

Keith's got more medals than you've got exclamation marks. !

Similar situation to Chris Ashton IMO, and look where he is. Patience is the key. He may make it, he may not

Yes, but not everyone who goes to RU has that success. I'm not saying he couldn't, simply that it's not a guarantee, and it won't happen overnight, so it isn't the massive immediate financial carrot that some might suggest. BJB could make it in RU, but it would be far from a certainty.

The game is and always will be bigger than Wigan.

The salary cap serves several purposes but one of them IS to stop a repeat of Wigan's buy everything domination of the sport in the early 1990s.

Besides which your whole premise is wrong - you seem to think that "smaller" clubs don't have any incentive to grow themselves, their crowds or their revenues due to the salary cap. That is seriously flawed logic.

This is a post that could only come from a fan of a club with a rich backer and an obsessive compulsive demand that they win every trophy every year forever.

And yet, it hasn't come from a Warrington fan.

Buying only the 13 best players in the world - which is the worst possible case scenario, in practise totally impossible (Wigan would need to by immensely rich to do that), still wouldn't give you total dominance. ( 3 injured at any one time, 3 out of form, who can even decide what 'best' 13 is anyway, etc. etc. )

Wigan skewed the competition primarily because they could have fielded 3 teams, 2 of which would have been in the top 3 and third mid-table at worst. THAT should never happen again.

What I want is clubs, any club to be able to buy *commercially attractive* stars, if there's a way to do so without debt.

Feel free to respond with cheap 'typical Wigan fan' digs, but whether you believe it or not, my argument is nothing to do with Wigan signing Billy Slater, and much more to do with Hull (say) signing Johnny Wilkinson. Which would do virtually nowt for their abililty on the pitch, but do absolute wonders for RL's profile, through news, sponsors, probably even a documentary...' Johnny does League

'. If there's a way to do that kind of thing without financial risk to the club (e.g. sponsor paying some or all of the wages) it should be allowed.

As to your point about incentive. I'm sure Wakefield would like to grow their crowds. But they seem to consistently fail. What's incentive got to do with it? They're crap at commercial development. We've tried to help, and they've still failed. Give others, like Leigh a go.