you are not only still putting the onus on players to protect rich men from themselves, but even on a technical level, the SC bares no relation to affordability.

The same successful purpose it serves in the NRL, and successfully in other sports. Unfortunately our ground breaking approach stood still whilst we rested on our laurels. 2016 now, and people running our game don't know it.

Increased level of competition? We have more of that now in British RL than at any time in any of our lifetimes. There is more doubt today over any result pre-match than anyone has ever seen.

Fans of rich clubs equate this with the death of the game. Even Salford fans are in on it now. There's nothing like hope for the downtrodden to feed the bitter resentment of the underclasses in their blackened hearts. I understand it is rewarding mediocrity, and not in any way a mechanism for increasing the level of interest through the hope that comes from a more even distribution of wins. So the same people make the same arguments in the same way that they made twenty years ago. And then remind everyone that it's 2016.

Even if Leeds make a million a year profit (I use that term advisedly as its a slippery sod itself), that means they'd need to save it for years to pay for major redevelopment of the stadium.

An increase in the cap would mean nothing for most SL teams, who are kept alive purely by the largesse of their owners. It would also in large part go straight into the hands of the existing crop of SL players. If the cap is holding everyone back, why hasn't every SL side got a "marquee" player?

TBH the naivety about the cap is incredible. It can't stop teams going bust but its far better protection than none at all. The idea that its some kind of capitalist conspiracy to keep cigar chewing suits in champers is mind-boggling. Most club owners have to support their clubs every year, not the other way round.

Increased level of competition is not what we have, it us a dumbed down competition of poor quality resulting in complacent attitudes and players regressing. That is not what the NRL or other sports have with a cap, and that is because a cap can still be in place for the good of the sport without it restricting the ability to have quality. This level competition argument is absolute rubbish, if you wanted that then you could go watch amateur rugby and pay a lot less. At least then you accept the quality is not what you are paying for.

Surely it is their interest to keep wages low - lower the wages the less that is required financially of them?

leeds have the same salary cap available as the teams above them. If you're spending it on the wrong players that's the fault of your club, not the system. Poor recruitment and retention is your problem, not the salary cap

Where has anyone blamed the SC for where we are??
The debate is more about adding/retaining more quality in SL.

No it wouldn't. Regards, Sam Burgess, Luke Burgess, Tom Burgess, George Burgess, Joe Burgess, Elliot Whitehead, Josh Hodgson, James Graham, Gareth Widdop, Josh Charnley, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, plus a host of overseas players who left super league for the NRL and a load of NRL players who didn't come over to super league as the wages are now much better down under.

I came across this article that states Wigan were spending £3.2m on wages in 2000 and still didn't win the comp. it's crazy that wages have gone down in real terms every year since then and continue to go down every year. The aim of the salary cap is to keep a level playing field, not to stop clubs going bust. If it was to stop clubs going bust the link in the cap to turnover would not have been removed and championship clubs would not be able to spend £1m. Limiting total spending is not the only way to keep super league competitive. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... pping.html

I came across this article that states Wigan were spending £3.2m on wages in 2000 and still didn't win the comp. it's crazy that wages have gone down in real terms every year since then and continue to go down every year. The aim of the salary cap is to keep a level playing field, not to stop clubs going bust. If it was to stop clubs going bust the link in the cap to turnover would not have been removed and championship clubs would not be able to spend £1m. Limiting total spending is not the only way to keep super league competitive. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... pping.html

The cap in theory is a good thing in theory but the reality doesn't provide the utopia that many think it should.

Firstly the bigger clubs will always have an advantage - the quality of their youth development and their access to the cream of the youth means that they will be able to have a bigger chunk of their players on very low wages - e.g. Sutcliffe and Lilley, the early days of McGuire and Burrow.

This allows:
For more cap spend on better/older players than the less fashionable clubs due to the lack of juniors padding out the squad
Teams full of journeyman players because they don't have the appropriate quality of juniors and they need a squad 25 players the cost of which has to fit within the cap.

Secondly the cap has to keep pace with other alternatives e.g. NRL, RU. If the cap stagnates then you logically only two things can happen:
If teams want to maintain the same relative wages they must have smaller squads i.e. £1.8m x 25 players add inflation and logic suggests either less players or less wages
Or the quality drops as clubs can no longer pay the wages they could and have to accept lower quality as the market price for quality has kept pace with inflation or even increased as market forces form other sports with increasing caps dictate the price for quality.

It could be argued that rather than being the saviour of the sport it is actually death of full time professional rugby league.

Everyone is complaining about the dire quality of SL at the moment - it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to accept there is a correlation between stagnating salary cap and lower standards.

For who talk about the real world - out in the real world there aren't restrictions as how much you can spend on your labour force - there isn't a limit on what Morrisons, Tescos, Asda and Sainsbury can spend on labour why do we think it is such a good idea in RL. Are we suggesting the likes of Caddick, McManus, Glover, Moran, Hudgell are so stupid they cannot be trusted to do in RL what they do in their day job?

By introducing those limits you are getting closer to legal challenges against the cap for restrictive practices. with no restrictions and an overall cap there is less proof that an individual is being treated unfairly. If you say only 5 players can earn €100k then players 6 downwards are being restricted in what they can earn.

Gareth Widdop left due to the salary cap?

Now you're just embarrassing yourself chief.

There is definitely a link between supermarkets and RL.

I've never understood why any athletic young man would prefer Bondi over Blackpool.

Regards Leon

I guess it's just all about the money.