There being a spectrum of exploitation is not a difficult concept.

Nor does there been extreme examples mitigate others.

Indentured servitude I'm the middle east isn't acceptable because it doesn't match the horror of the Atlantic slave trade.

Then don't make dumb suggestions that professional rugby players are being exploited because the company that employs them makes a small profit.

Out of interest, you've talked about market value a lot, what is your definition of market value. Just out of interest?

it is a dumb suggestion (or more likely deliberately disingenuous) for you to say my issue is with Leeds making a profit. I have no issue with Leeds making a profit, whether that profit be £1, £1m, or £1b a year. My issue is with Leeds colluding with their competitors to artificially depress wages so they can make a profit off the back of not paying players their worth.

Market value is whatever someone is willing to pay. Something that isnt allowed to happen in RL because of the aforementioned collusion.

I reckon you don't have to look too far to find more convincing examples of exploitation than being rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle for merely playing rugby. Put it this way, I won't lose much sleep over it.

Quote: Clearwing "I reckon you don't have to look too far to find more convincing examples of exploitation than being rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle for merely playing rugby. Put it this way, I won't lose much sleep over it.'" Sadly many explayers, like Ian Knott for instance, losing sleep is the least of their worries. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32231774 www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/loc ... s-1-682147

Quote: Clearwing "I reckon you don't have to look too far to find more convincing examples of exploitation than being rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle for merely playing rugby. Put it this way, I won't lose much sleep over it.'" Sadly many explayers, like Ian Knott for instance, losing sleep is the least of their worries. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32231774 www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/loc ... s-1-682147

Willing or able to pay? Most companies who actually exist in the real world have to consider both.
You say you have no problem with Leeds making a profit, how are they going to do that if suddenly the wage bill doubles?
The truth you don't seem to grasp is that there is only so much money in the sport of RL, there's nobody creaming off millions at the players expense, there is simply only so much money available.
If, as you say repeatedly, the club chairmen have all "colluded" (which means decided in secret) to keep players salaries down then by your own definition of "market value" the people who release funds to buy players have, by colluding, already decided what they are prepared to pay. The players are then already getting their market value.

the risk and the reward lie with Paul Caddick. So that is his problem. If he chooses to pay players double its his problem. He can always choose not to pay those wages.

except of course the roughly £1m Paul Caddick gets a year along with an appreciating real estate asset .

It was decided in secret. Where you or I allowed in to the vote to put in place or renew it? Are the minutes of the yearly meeting publicly available? are even the players invited to observe never mind participate in that decision making?

If players were getting their market value then there A) wouldnt be such need for that collusion and B) no punishment nor threat of punishment for breaking the SC.

The fact is that we have a club in the process of being investigated for a salary cap infraction with the threat of penalty. That very fact means we do not and cannot pay players their market value.

Really? You weren't at the meeting? I was.

I see the cap much like I see laws to make people do things that are obviously in their own interest. Because there are f***wits who would ride a motorbike without a crash helmet, even though when they inevitably fall off they will most likely smash their skull to pieces.
The Market has decided what players are worth and the cap tries to protect the dimwits who come along into sport from doing something stupid, not only inevitably bankrupting themselves, but also f******g things up for everyone else in the process.

I think I've made my point. The dumbness of your last post suggests you have run out of anything resembling sense.

that a group of very rich men, have convinced you that it is up to their workers to earn less, to protect these very rich businessmen from themselves and ensure they stay very rich is crazy.

that players dont earn that much and can find themselves cast aside at 35 years old with a body battered and bruised and struggling to make ends meet. A position Messrs Lenegan, Caddick, McManus, Moran, Pearson, Koukash and Hudgell are unlikely to find themselves.

Rather than a salary cap that limits the total wages a club can pay, I would be interested to see something like the following.
You are allowed 5 players earning over £100k, a further 5 players earning over £80k, a further 5 players earning over £60k and a further 5 players earning over £40k.

No one team would be able to sign all the best players, which should keep the league competitive, but it wouldn't limit what clubs can pay young players such as Lilly, or stop players achieving a wage that is their market value.

It's early days yet but if Leeds find themselves consigned to a similar league position next season and restricted from doing anything about it by the salary cap, the number of fans arguing for a scrapping of that salary cap will increase tenfold.

The problem with that is that it still allows clubs to spend what they can't afford. Increase the revenues at clubs and the sport as a whole first before we allow clubs to spend more on players and engage in the kind of batsh|ttedry that nearly killed the game 20+ years ago.

And right on cue, George Osborne has turned up.