how can they afford it if they only made a slight profit by selling assets? hardly longterm thinking. If a club can make a profit through "normal" business then they may have a case for raising the cap, but any that do barely break even.

What was their profit though?

If their turnover is £10 million but their costs are £10 million, then no they can't.

My wage bill is approx half of my monthly costs, and I don't run a labour intensive business, I sell goods rather than services. However, a rugby league club needs a lot more staff than just the players - it needs to staff the whole infrastructure, they also will have a high cost of maintaining their premises and I would assume matchday itself is rather expensive in terms of staffing/organising.

Where did you hear this? In terms of a balance sheet, that statement is a bit of an oxymoron. Fixed assets or current assets?

it was on here or the VT when all the clubs released their accounts, leeds sold a peice of land to put them in profit

Then that's a nonsense - unless they sold it for more than it was valued at.
Your Profit & Loss report doesn't care whether you've £XX worth of cash or £XX worth of fixed assests.
An accountant (which I'm not) may talk about [icash profit[/i or something like that, but i think that's more for monitoring your company's postion than end of the day profit.

It isnt voluntary, the RFL (or Super League ltd) impose sanctions for going above that level.

If it were a case where all chairmen had simply decided to pay up to £1.65m then you would be right, but it isnt. They are forced to do so.

And a player would simply need to prove that his earnings were limited by this to have reason to challenge it. I doubt it would stand up

there clearly is a restriction or we wouldnt have a salary cap

the sale of assets did take Leeds into a profit. It was however a one of expenditure (on the Southstand) that took them into a loss

If you discount the one off income of the sale, and the one of expenditure on the southstand. We operated at a profit

for some reason you are comparing a single business operating in an open market to a group of business operating in a restricted market.

People in the civil service have the option of going to do the same job in the private sector for more money. Market forces will judge their worth. Chris Moyles can go work for Sky TV, ITV, or any numer of radio stations, again Market Forces will judge his worth.

An RL player only has a limited number of clubs who have all together limited a players potential for earning. Leon Pryce cant go play for Wigan on a £2m a year deal because Wigan and Saint helens have agreed together to limit wages. Chris Moyles possible earnings at ITV arent limited by what the BBC and ITV have agreed. This is a huge difference

On the SC itself.

A salary Cap imo can be a good thing. It can be used to force clubs to do what we want and reward them for doing so.

This SC is rubbish. It doesnt do any of the things it was supposed to and has been an all round failure

but maintanence of the ground is on going, but you cant sell your assets more than once.

if Wigan can get a third party sponsor to pay £2m for Leon Pryce's salary then there is no restriction - which is surely a good thing, as it rewards clubs that have strong commercial and business acumen, and stops clubs spending money they dont have.