Sensible outcome. No need to "Dumb down" the competition artificially. If the club owners don't want to (or can't) spend the cap then that's fine. Leeds have already said they will not operate up to the cap next year.

The biggest mistake in terms of cap has been the removal of the 50% of Turnover limit. RL needs clubs that grow their revenue to develop financial independence and improve their position to invest in grass roots and youth, as well as strengthen the negotiating hand for the future TV deals. It's clear with all the exceptions granted, those that run the game recognise the cap limit is too low in real terms.

I was taking to a former Fax fan yesterday. Says when super league was introduced Fax were told to merge or fold, to accommodate the French team at the time. The game thus lost a massive heartland area.
Absolutely crazy imho. Think we need to stop looking at Toronto etc as the future, and go back yo grass roots...

Unanimously is interesting, considering that last week it was 6-5 in favour of lowering it.

Highly likely that the Yorkshire clubs were won around by the threat of the league splitting and then being left in the bottom half, where there was less money?

The way this unfolded, especially with Wire waving their wallet about in the middle of it, with the signing of Inglis, certainly strongly suggests this?

how come they did neither then?

Has GH said that or did he mean it would be hard for most clubs to operate on the full cap?

I'm sure I saw it on a twitter post from Peter Smith, perhaps in the article itself. Seemed to be "quoting the club".

I suspect this is why he eventually folded on the Cap limit topic, didn't really matter if he knew he couldn't drag everyone else down to his level...

Halifax Blue Soxs were amongst the original teams in Super League other teams that have since slipped into lower divisions are Oldham Bears, Sheffield Eagles and Workington Town plus Paris folded.

You don't half talk some cra@

If you don't think the unveiling of Inglis at that particular time wasn't a statement of sorts, to certain people within our game, then you are very naive.

Quite. The club went bust several years into SL, sadly. The idea that they were forced out is rubbish.

The play off game vs them in 1998 was one of the more heart-stopping moments we had under Graham Murray. At half time in that game we had gone 120 minutes without scoring against them, after the nilling the previous week. Fortunately we turned it around but going to Thrum Hall, later the Shay, was always daunting, even in their ill-fated final SL season when, moderately humourously, they had the two points they actually won on the field deducted for a salary cap breach. Who could forget the furore over Francis Cummins' innocuously raking his boot across the face of some prone 'Fax player?

Any split that didn't involve Leeds would see the splitting clubs facing some quite big financial pain quite quickly - they're Sky's no. 1 rating team, similarly Hull. Lose those two and suddenly Sky's £££ offer wouldn't be very attractive.

Some clubs have already realised that they have space on the cap with the reductions, so majority of the clubs will be able to bring more players in.

I think any breakaway would obviously include Leeds and Hull. I was thinking more of the likes of Wakefield, Huddersfield and Hull KR, who would be seriously under threat from any league breakaway or restructure.

I think they would have been quickly brought to heel if mention of any split was made during any discussions.

And the rest of the cra@ you wrote

McManus 1 hetherington 0

I thought Leeds were a big club? Trying to compete by limiting what your opponents can spend? How utterly embarassing