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.

only if that company has no relationship with the club at all. Which makes it very difficult, nigh on impossible. Which is another poor aspect of this SC.

And if Wigan can afford it, it stops them paying out what they can afford. And neither does it stop them paying out £1.65m if they dont have £1.65m

It was an example of wage restrictions that aren't illegal. The fact that it is a single business (assuming you're talking about the civil service reference) in an open market compared to a group of business operating in a restricted market doesn't matter. If a civil servant wants to do a certain job in that industry his individual wages are capped at a certain level, an RL players is not within that wage budget.





RL players can go to the NRL, or they can play RU, there are options there for them. Given there are outside employers available, it isn't as restricted a market as you suggest it is. As you suggest, market forces are at work. If the player does not feel that the wage he is being offered by an RL club is enough, he is free to attempt to improve that wage elsewhere, just like a civil servant going to a private firm. You can't have it both ways, you appear to be suggesting that an RL player shouldn't have to change job for a pay rise, but a civil servant should.

like Paul Sculthorpe & Gillette, Iestyn Harris & Reebok (Leeds), Iestyn Harris at Bradford (although not the best example, due to incompentance at the Bulls) amongst many others??

If the player has a high enough profile and the club has good commercial sense they can make it happen without breaking the rules.

it is the fundemental difference


Im suggesting an RL player can't. He cant go somewhere else and and be an RL player for more money because all the clubs are under the same salary restrictions.

And it isnt market forces at work because the SC stops that happening. Saying he can go to other sports or to australia is irrelevant. the SC is a fundemental restriction on a player earning his worth as an RL player in this country.

a Civil servant has the opportunity to go into the private sector and do the same job for money. It would be the equivalent of an RL player moving from one RL club to another NOT as you seem to be equating it a move from RL to RU.

The Current rules would equate to a secretary's earnings working for Vodafone being limited to what BT can spend on their Secretaries. And your justification would be to say its OK, this secretary could leave and be a plumber or move to Australia.

Yes. Like two people. One of which wasnt allowed. Its obviously not a very successful scheme is it

I'm sorry but this simply illustrates how some opponents of a salary cap, particularly some on the Wigan board, do not merely disagree with the argument of many who support the idea of a cap (which would be fair enough) they don't even understand the argument.

Pegging the salary of all mobile phone company secretaries to the same level is simply not the same. You would say that that would hold back a particularly successful company; you would be right. However most who support the idea of cap do not simply look at the competition between individual RL clubs rather the much wider issue of the competition between RL generally and other sports in particular and other leisure activities generally.

A salary cap system at least has the potential to promote competition. Without competition there would be a significant reduction is TV rights payments, sponsorship payments and gate receipts(as the payers would look to spend their money elsewhere). How would the players be paid then?

So one club cannot offer more than another? A club may not be able to offer a multi million pound salary, but who could afford to do that anyway? No RL club in this country could, cap or not.



No it isn't, a civil servant could not do the same job in the private sector, they could be 'an office worker' but then an RL player could be 'a sportsperson'



What? That's bizarre even for you.

whilst clubs working together for the benefit of the game is undoubtedly a good thing, to pretend the clubs arent in competition with each other, then claiming without the competition between the clubs the sport is screwed is very very strange