No.

But there is only one sport, as far as I can see, where some people THINK parity exists.

I don't think anybody thinks parity exists in rugby league, salary cap or not, but there's more cyclical movement in rugby league than in other sports.

Fans of teams at the bottom of the league always want parity with those at the top. Did you think it was fair on us when you were signing guys like Henry Paul and Vainikolo and putting the awesome foursome on the park? I was always having a whinge about the salary cap on the old Bulls messageboard back then ( Jiffys Wires )

Since then I've ditched my Che Guevara t shirt and taken the attitude the working class can kiss my ass, the plebs need to 'aspire to get richer'. It's always fun telling the Wigan fans that one when they complain about Warrington signing someone

Those at the top will always look to exercise lobbying power to keep things that way, if anybody ever suggests changing the cap or toughening it up the line comes out about how rugby league faces extinction because of union signing all our players, its for the good of protecting the game that we have rich teams using their financial advantage...

It's no different from the bankers lobbying to prevent tighter regulation or higher tax by saying if we go to Switzerland the UK economy will be in ruins.

But there are plenty of naïve souls who insist that the players of each club spending the salary cap must be earning the same amount of money in aggregate as all the other cap-spending clubs. And therefore those clubs with patently weaker squads but still spending the cap must be run by muppets or are liars - so they would have you believe. Some of them probably believe everything politicians tell them too. Oh joy.

We see it on this forum. People slagging the club off for "paying the same money as Club X yet look at the players we signed compared to them".

Maybe people all thought Melbourne was spending the same as everyone else too?

It depends if it was Wigan or Leeds....It would have been interesting down under if it had been, say, Manly.

AFAIAA RL is one of the few sports with an active salary cap so in theory it should. It only seems to be teams who are struggling who believe it is being grossly flouted.

Naturally. And those that are struggling tend to be the ones without a wealthy owner. Yet if a club lacks a wealthy owner but is still able to spend the salary cap, then the squads should be reasonably similar, yes? Even allowing for the vicious circle of the more "successful" clubs being able to attract the cream of the crop therefore they remain the more successful" clubs...

Do you attribute all the perceived yawning gulf in quality of squads to this "cream of the crop" argument?

If not, then to what do you attribute it?

I put success down to the best coaches, there are 5 or 6 teams could win SL ATM, & the best players. I don't worry myself about how the clubs fund themselves. When I have destroyed capatilism, rugby union, Jeremy Clarkson, weak lager & gingerness I will turn my attentions to the celery cap.

I'll man the barricades with you on most of those. And I'd join you on capitalism if I could guarantee I'd end up as Naopleon not Snowball...

I see you as more of a Boxer.

I agree with this.

Warrington were spending at or near the full salary cap during the later years of Paul Cullen's reign, the 2008 squad that got Cullen sacked and was bottom of the league early next year under Lowes, was the same core of players that won two Challenge Cups. The big difference was Tony Smith coming in.

But also, when a previously struggling club comes into money, it takes a while to be able to get to the top because for the first few years they have to pay over the odds for players. Warrington were signing players from Bradford, Saints etc that had won trophies in the past but were now moved on by those teams, and we were gobbling them up on good salaries, because that was as good as we could get in the market at that time.

If say Widnes were a full salary cap spending team for next season I doubt they would be signing Sam Tomkins or Jonathan Thurston. They would be having to spend big on going for guys like Hock or Ellis.

Surely most Bradford fans would be the donkey Benjamin, seen it all, cynical about everything, not fooled by any propaganda

100% spot on with that part.

To be truthful, there are few leagues where any kind of 'parity' is [iintended[/i to exist between the competing teams. However, in the case of RL, it [iwas[/i decided by a vote of the clubs that some sort of égalité should exist between the competing teams, so as to create, as near as possible, a 'level playing field' and a more even competition. On that basis I feel that your question, whilst valid on a more general level, is redundant in this specific case

I think the whole thread (and my clumsy point) is well worthy of debate, particularly when looking at a Super League where there are the same distinctions in place as in Premier division soccer which has no such levelling mechanism; a well funded elite of four of five at the top who are clearly in a league of their own, and from whom the champions are pre-ordained to come, then a block of mid table teams who will neither win anything nor be danger of relegation/wooden spoon and finally two or three at the bottom who will no doubt be the relegation fodder of the Prem div or wooden spoonists in SL.

How can two leagues with such a differing ethos end up so alike? It may be that you can never stop those who wish to circumnavigate the regulations from doing so, and if that's true maybe we should stop pretending and go back to the free for all?

That would make Hood Napoleon then...?



I don't think so. And if you want to go tell the Duffster he's Squealer, that's your own affair...

I'd start off like Snowball, but sadly end up like Benjamin if I could avoid an accident with an ice axe...

Tut, tut comrade. We will staff the barricades.