Quote: tigertot "Clubs have to be protected from themselves, with very little money available to clubs or the RFL there is not a great deal the RFL can do. Unless you are an inbred Wigan hillbilly & want the cap scrapped so they can be dominant again I am not seeing many sensible alternatives, & I am buggered if I know many.'"
It's not the idea of a cap that I see as wrong, it's the fact it is such an arbitrary number, bearing no relation to the club, it's income, or it's potential.
Saying "You can all spend £1.6m on salaries" is the most ludicrous thing anyone has ever done in sport. It penalises those clubs who can (and often do) generate way more than this figure, and encourages those that don't generate the income to spend money they haven't got (societies problem all 'round these days).
If the salary cap was based on matchday revenues - and by that I mean genuine 'through the gate' revenues, not backhanded one off 'sponsorships' - then what would be the problem? If 15-20,000 fans turn up at Wigan/Leeds and pay £15-£25, why should they lose players to NRL/Union simply because other clubs cant get 5,000 through the gate, even at reduced prices? If only 3,000 people can be bothered to watch a team, then I'm sorry but you will be watching a crap team. If you turn out in more numbers, then your team will be allowed to improve as revenues improve. Again, why is that such a difficult concept?
The current situation whereby (to keep top players) clubs with genuine spare cash have to skirt around the salary cap by offering outside perks, family jobs, and elongated contracts, simply because certain other clubs shout 'foul' as they can't afford it is farcical. I'm surprised the RFL haven't stipulated all players have to drive Trabants and live in identical state run apartment blocks so no-one looks more equal than the others!