I am not for one minute trying to denigrate your company - if you are typical of the employees in that business it is no surprise it has been a success.

The point I was trying to make is if you company decided to take on a highly paid employee your salary nor your head count numbers would be impacted as your company doesn't have a ceiling on what it can spend on salaries - that is not the case in RL.

As interesting a debate on the salary cap and it's effects on the sport are generally, it's probably best left to fans of those ambitious clubs who are not run by Gary Hetherington.

Increased level of competition is absolutely what we have. Whether you point to the cap or year on year mismanagement in development and recruitment by formerly good teams, hamstrung by the rules they themselves voted for, increased level of competition is exactly what we have.

We are not competitive with the NRL. We *ARE* as competitive *as* the NRL. And yes, I can prove it.

Sport is narrative. Narrative relies on stories. Stories are only interesting when you don't know the outcome.

This is the situation we have had for a few years, and the more it becomes evident the more people who only want the special effects blockbuster in which Superman somehow manages to overcome no odds at all moan about having to listen to the words and relate to the human situations the characters find themselves in.

You talk about the situation we have being akin to watching kids. It's reading Leeds, Wigan and now Salford fans talk about the cap that is like watching kids. Spoilt kids away from home for the first time finding out they don't get to do what they want.

Stop pulling that girl's hair and switch the light out!

Its also worth noting a couple of points about sports as compared to other types of business.

Firstly, sporting businesses require strong competitors. In most industries companies would form monopolies if they were allowed to. In sport without strong competitors you'd have nothing. That means that you cannot have a healthy sport without catering for the weakest links. That is an area directly affected by the cap, which at least in part is supposed to help level the competition (which vbfg has shown is happening to a degree).

Secondly for all the talk about wealthy owners, its worth remembering that very few SL teams make any kind of profit even with the cap where it is (and a number of teams spending well under the cap). The sport as a whole is basically insolvent. If pro RL was a 'normal' industry it would have vanished along with buggy whip manufacturers. Make no mistake, without the largesse of owners RL would not exist (neither would most pro sports outside the US).

Even the supposedly profitable teams can lose money very fast. Sts a few years ago lost a packet when they failed to win silverware because that's what they'd budgeted for. We've seen myriad clubs (including Leeds) being close to the wall and needing financial saviours to come in and bail them out.

That means that even a supposedly profitable club needs its owners to take risks. You cannot ignore that when looking at annual profits.

Spot on and why I don't think comparing sports club to 'normal' businesses is right. Morrisons wouldn't mind one bit if Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury's all bit the dust and it'd make them stronger.

What would Leeds be if Wigan, Saints and Warrington all bit the dust? Playing in a league where interest (and thus money) would plummet. Not having a strong Bradford side in SL anymore is a loss to the league and especially Leeds as their near rivals.

I don't know the numbers but I'm sure the Scottish Premiership has suffered for not having Rangers in it for several years now due to their financial mismanagement and that then hurts all other clubs in that league.

Except that Saints become no stronger by limiting Leeds spending.

And your very example of Bradford disproves the practical effect of the SC. It didn't keep Bradford strong or make them stronger than they otherwise would be.

It's pretty much conclusive proof against your argument that the SC hasn't risen for 15 seasons and has caused a huge fall in wages and continues to do so. If interest was created by the SC then it would translate through increased TV deals increased attendances increased sponsorship merchandise etc to increased salaries for players. But it isn't.

Wigan turnover has barely grown since the introduction of the SC. Leeds hasn't grown an awful lot, attendances have not been on a continual upward curve at the biggest clubs. In fact since 2001'/2002 we have seen pretty clear stagnation at the biggest clubs in terms of turnover and attendances.

Strength isn't an absolute concept in the context of a sports league. That's the whole point. Everything is relative.

And the cap is about salaries, not other expenditures. There are many ways over and above employee salaries for a business driven by results to nose dive into the floor and go right through. Neither absolute limits on salaries nor the 50% of income limit on salaries will solve those issues. There can never be a cap on foolishness and idiocy. That the administrators of some clubs still suffer from it doesn't detract from the cap in any way that I can see.

I would also like to see the effects on crowds across the board that come from a wider realisation of hope across the land. We're a couple of years away from being able to truly assess that. That realisation is only just starting to dawn.

That hope doesn't come from your idea that SL is more competitive on a game by game basis. It comes from the chance to win trophies. Something which is no more likely post cap than pre.

You are right we can't legislate for idiocy. We will never be able to. However foolproof you make something only underestimates a fools ability to do something foolish. You can cap ambition. You can limit investment you can limit growth you can encourage stagnation and that's what the SC does.

SL no longer has the ambition to be the premier rugby code in the country. It no longer has the ambition to be the premier rl league in the world. It no longer has the ambition to be the showcase for the elite rugby players. It is no longer investing in being so and it is shown throughout the sporting world that failing in an elite competition is more attractive to fans. Sponsors and TV companies than succeeding in a 2nd class one.

The salary cap, the rugby leagues equivalent to off-shore business practices.

Of course, because narrative.



Because it hasn't happened yet and therefore won't ever? Despite the an increased chance of beating anyone put in front of you? Sorry mate, you're going to need to explain that.



Any ambitions it has to be the premier RL competition in the world are an utter delusion and always have been. Any hopes the A-League has of over taking the Premier League are a delusion, and always will be - and they have no sporting cultural hegemony to contend with. People do not descend into an atavistic rage over what they might regard as an improper use of the word 'football' there because rlthere are no such thoughts thererl and everyone is okay with it. The English have a nervous breakdown when they discover they're pretty much the only people in the world to butter their bread for sandwiches. Changing their sporting habits on any kind of conceivable timeline is an impossible task.

When I see the provincial towns of Leeds and Wigan listed on the inside covers of internationally published books; when I see them as the home bases of major media organisations that have the billions of dollars spare to wage war over TV rights for multiple sports; when I see them as places from which culture regularly flows out from, and not in to, then I will believe these to be worthy and achievable goals but they just aren't. We are on the receiving end of the cultural hegemony, and not just sporting in kind but of all natures. We are absolutely not the source of it.

We really need to ground ourselves on the world as it is and not the best ambitions of our wildest flights of fancy. Which is not to say that we need to limit our ambitions. Our ambitions should be total and complete world domination, and all the spoils of whatever steps we can take down that road.

That means persistent high quality story telling that makes people sit up and take notice. There is always scope in my view for constant review over the nature of the cap. Our goals can only be achieved by working together to fight the true hegemony, and not introduce shore up yet more within the confines of our own sport.

Brothers and sisters! Who is with me?

Do you think that we would have the new stadia that we have without the salary cap. More spending on salaries would mean less spending on other areas, including infrastructure. If we hadn't had that investment, it is likely that customers would have drifted assay from the tumbledown stadia that SL clubs had.

I'm assuming you're not being serious.

a focus on performing in the big games removes focus from performing in the little ones. Ergo big side challenging from trophies is worse than they otherwise would be but better in the big games than they otherwise would be, so whilst a smaller side might be more likely to beat them in a league game they aren't any more likely to beat them in the big games. That's why we continue to see less successful clubs challenge during the season but go to prices come play off time.


In my lifetime club rl was comfortably bigger than club RU. In my lifetime RU has made massive in roads in many different countries. In my lifetime NFL in this country has gone from niche interest to selling out massive stadiums numerous times a year. Stagnation isn't grounding ourself in the world as it is. It's settling for what's easy.

We cannot sell ourselves as high quality story telling and expect people to sit up and take notice when our very best quality is leaving to tell those stories elsewhere.

Yes. I don't believe the differential between what we are spending and what we would spend is close to paying for a new stadium.

And again spending on players does not equal less spending elsewhere.

It does when you only have a limited pot of cash to spend.

You appear to be operating in some sort of "Field of Dreams" scenario, whereby if we pay players more the standard will improve and clubs will suddenly be turning punters and potential commercial partners away at the gate. For many reasons, including some of those stated by vbfg, that simply isn't going to happen quickly enough for clubs to sustain that increased spending.

The overwhelming majority of RL clubs are operating on a very tight budget. The choice will literally be between paying the promising young half-back you have an extra £20k or refurbishing the toilets. If you don't recognise that as a reality, have a think back to places like Watersheddings, Derwent Park or even the old version of Craven Park in Hull. Those stadia weren't cr*pholes because the people running them couldn't be bothered, they were in a state of disrepair because the playing budget took first call on the finances.

if you spend more on players, it absolutely does equal less spending elsewhere - at least in the real world of professional RL.