Quote: Marty Grrrrrrrrrr! "Can i ask how many clubs you think can afford to spend massively if no cap was there? In my eyes its Warrington and nobody else.
And they cant do it without a rich owner.
Rugby League isnt awash with money in the good times, in current times the game needed a bail out from the Government to survive yet fans think clubs have money to throw around. Laughable.'"
I depends on your definition of "massively". I think there are more clubs that are, or should be, capable of spending to a salary cap level that was set back in 2002 during ordinary times and should be capable of maintaining a level of pay that is on parity with inflation.
But I'd reiterate again - instead of saying "there is no money in the sport so we can't raise the salary cap, even in line with inflation", we should be saying "what the hell is going on a club level to create a situation where there so little cash in the sport, we have to pay the players £1m less in real terms?". That's the real issue here - why are clubs playing in front of declining crowds, why aren't they increasing revenue and why are, in some cases, practically giving away tickets and sponsorship? Name me another professional sport that has seen such a lack of growth.
The line of thinking that we have to supress the salary cap year after year is a false economy. It devalues the product, makes recruitment and retention harder and makes it more difficult to sell what is increasingly becoming a "Pound Shop Sport" to new audiences, sponsors and broadcasters.
And above all else it is an issue of fairness. The club owners are frankly taking the mick out of the playing talent, asking them to play more and more, asking them to bear the brunt of the current situation with actual pay cuts, and imposing real-terms cuts for two decades. If your employer tried the same shtick you'd move to a competitor - except that it's much more difficult for RL players to do the same because the clubs have effectively colluded with each other to keep renumeration low.
