What we ended up with in the previous two or three seasons, was a squad that was reportedly being paid almost full salary cap, yet playing at a standard that was significantly short of top 8. League table position may not be the full story, but many of the performances confirmed the superficial story, and so you'd have to conclude that as a squad they were being considerably overpaid.

Last season the squad overall performed magnificently, taking everything into account, and the adversity that they faced, however were and are a long way short of a top-four squad, so arguably they were still overall being significantly overpaid, or else half a dozen clubs above us were getting significantly more bang for their buck.

Some argue that the likes of Cas, London and Widnes were also spending pretty much the full cap, preposterous though it may seem that the Vikings' wage bill (for example) should be comparable with the Warriors or Wire.

I have heard it said that there's a reverse psychology at work, that for a bottom-dweller club to sign a team of decent (if not top rated) players it has to pay then [imore[/i rather than less, as some sort of premium, as why else would a quality player sign for such a club, if not for the money? Maybe there's something in that. If it is true that as a league, the clubs all pay say 90% of the salary cap, then that means any team trying to impose a meaner structure may have few takers, if higher paid jobs are available elsewhere.

That other guy, 'a sensible lady' + various aliases, has obviously got mental issues.

Which was exactly my point - the ones who haven't been given a SL contract and not entered into the Nandos culture yet and don't have to provide for a family. Think the no play no money might mean the job is pretty important.

Looks like he is on here think he`s Debulls!

correct!

Debulls et al won't be bothering this board anymore.