We do both already.

The team we have is the result of previous seasons investments, and we all know that in November there will be news of a "big" signing just before the season ticket prices are announced, its as certain as christmas.

It's bemusing because it means we're not playing as well as we can.

Not playing as well as we can means it isn't as attractive to the spectators (evidenced by our lower attendances this season), corporates, sponsors etc.

And don't forget, we're out of the cup. One of our goals at the beginning of the season was to win the cup, so we're clearly not achieving our goals.

You're right - it is a business. Which is why it's important to increase revenue by drawing the crowds, and also to stay in relatively lucrative competitions like the Challenge Cup.

How does spending up to your cap limit mean you'll play better?

For the last two years Wigan have most likely had a salary spend equal to or more than that of Leeds - remind me again how far that got them both on the field and in terms of increasing crowds?

Wigan and Leeds are two completely different clubs with different players. To compare the two is pointless.

In the case of Leeds, spending up to cap would mean more players. This would benefit the club in two ways. Firstly, players could be rotated and rested, ensuring we get the best out of them for as long as possible. Secondly, it allows the coach to drop players if they're not playing well and replace them with people who are eager to prove their place.

This worked particularly well in 2004. Do you remember 2004?

Thats only relevant if these"signings" are the right people on the right money.
GH has consistently been trying to improve the squad i.e. Pritchard,Soliola,Millard,Eastwood etc the reasons these haven't come off are not imo the clubs fault.
Whats the point in signing players to top up yer squad if the deals and players aren't right for the club???????

Duncan that is the what the salary cap does - it produces a more even more mediocre competition. It has happened in Australia and it is happening here. Rather than forcing teams to improve their team, youth development, infrastructure, marketing etc it simply allows the poorer sides to wait for the better sides to come back to them.

Add to that the fact the cap has not moved in 10+ years what have you got poorer squads - the teams that will prosper are those that can develop a good crop of young players who are able to function at the elite level for a fraction of their very average NRL developed team mates - Saints look to be in the best position with their current crop of youngsters.

On the positive it could give a number of Bristish youngsters the opportunity to develop at the elite level - every cloud!!!!

I do, I remember Leeds had a raft of young players in the first team squad, many of whom were on their first professional contracts still.

I also remember that the cap was £200k higher five years ago.

Why is comparing what two clubs of similar size have done with their respective playing budgets and their contrasting results pointless?

I also remember us signing Ali mid-season that year, so must have played at least part of that season under the cap.

What is obvious is that the club have identified and tried to sign who they deem suitable for the right price this hasn't happened for reasons beyond the clubs control.

The point is that we had lots of bodies, meaning we could rest/drop players. This played a major part in our success.



I could use Saints instead of Wigan and point them out as an example of how spending all your cap results in success. You could pick whichever club suits your viewpoint. That's why it's pointless.

Exactly - a signing mid-season this year would have been good for us I'm sure.

IIRC the signing was only possible because in his 1st half season here we used the CC bonus money to get him so i don't think the "cap space" was all that big.

So really your point about spending up to the cap is pointless as you've come up with two examples that completely contradict each other ?

The way I look at it is that Leeds would have had a better squad if they had spent their full allocation that the cap permits this season.

Had they done so, results and performances may have been better than they have been so far. They may have retained the WCC, they may have been playing in a Challenge Cup semi final next weekend and they may have been sat four points clear on the table in good shape to defend their championship.

Were Leeds at full cap spend none of these unknowns would be possible we'd simply be where we are now. No longer WCC holders, out of the Challenge Cup at the first hurdle, sat in second on the competition table and mounting a regular version of the great escape on matchdays.