Not even when there is a specific rule, voted in by the clubs themselves, against it?

Think you may be correct about the "old guard" though. I don't think any clubs in RL can compare to such as Arsenal or United (though even united did a spell in div2, IIRC). I think clubs go from rags to riches and back again much quicker in RL than soccer too. Of course, the differences in the levels of finance required to back a top division soccer team and an SL outfit are so far apart as to make them incomparable, so I guess that shouldn't come as any surprise.

I do of course mean within the rules. If, for example, Wakefield (no offence intended to reading Wakey fans, it's just an example) who I think are not currently spending up to the salary cap limit, suddenly get a windfall of income somehow, would there really be anything wrong with them going out and signing some higher quality players to improve their squad? And if they got a cup win from that, would people deride them for having bought a trophy?

As far as Warrington and the salary cap goes, it's being hinted at all over the place, all I can say is: If the club are ever found to be in breach of the rules, then the club should be punished accordingly as to the rules layed down in the RFL bye-laws. But, I won't comment on whether we are or aren't, because unlike some people, I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of what every player in Warrington's squad earns as a salary.

On the first point - people take it for granted that the salary cap is 'abused' and teams are breaking it, but without any evidence.

How many people making these accusations have actually got evidence that some teams are actively cheating and gaining an advantage, or is it just inference based on the fact Warrington are so far ahead of the rest of the league that they must be doing something that the other clubs aren't.

On your second point as regards Bradford being part of the "old guard" I guess your impressions of old guard depend on how long you have been watching RL. The teams I would regard as the "old guard" ie traditionally successful clubs, are Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Bradford, Hull. When I was younger I'd have had Widnes and Hull KR in that group but its been a long time since they were successful. When Bradford became strong in the 1990s it wasn't so much a new team emerging as an old powerhouse of the game returning to the fore, after all they had been champions in the early 1980s and had Ellery Hanley etc. When we became good under Tony Smith it was a new team emerging because we'd won f-all since Alex Murphy won us a one-off Challenge Cup in 1974.

Warrington have done something that other clubs aren't - paying transfer fees and thus avoiding getting into bidding wars with other clubs.

If a player is out of contract and able to talk to a number of clubs you can guarantee he will be playing one off against another. Whilst if say Richard Myler has a year left of a £10k a year contract at Salford is he going to accept a four year deal contract with Warrington at a few grand less per year than what he could negotiate if he saw out the additional year at Salford? I would suggest yes - so the value a rich benefactor provides to Warrington is that he is willing to bank-roll the transfer fee to provide exclusivity. Look at Carvell when he left Hull - no other club would pay the fee Hull wanted - if five clubs were willing I'll guarantee that his salary now would be a few grand more.

The only player I think we have picked-up at the end of his contract was Ratchford. Even for Chris Hill we paid a transfer fee that suited all parties before he went on the opern market.

The other thing Warrington have done is to award long term contracts to ageing players that has on occasion swung things in our favour in securing players - Hodgson and Morley spring to mind.


Thanks to Adeybull for the link to the new salary cap regulations. Lots of concessions that Warrington will qualify for to up our salary cap, I'd even imagine we'd persaude the RFL that either Evans or Williams qualify for the Player Talent Pool one that will remove their salary completely from the calculation. Interesting that there is no "marquee player" exclusion that Leneghan from Wigan was going on about - looks like he spoke to soon in that instance.

Interesting insight there Paul

And of course if Warrington are paying transfer fees that are being financed by a rich benefactor then that money is going to the receiving clubs so this is an injection of finance into rugby league which is good for the game.

But surely that just ties up a salary cap for a long time and not all players are worth that gamble?

Anyway what I can't understand is the logic behind the salary cap anymore. If ther are so many clubs with rich backers supposedly flouting the rules why is it not scrapped? How would the clubs with no backer be any worse off and how would those supposedly flouting the rules be better off?

It would make things worse though. At least at the moment, clubs have to at least try and pretend they are keeping under the cap and therefore can't have an international in every position. With no cap, rich clubs could drive up wages, buy who they like and pay stupid money, the others would be left far behind.
It would in effect create a two tier league I think.

The idea someone on here had a while ago, about allocating points to a player and having a points cap rather than a salary cap is brilliant. I don't know why it is not used. I am sure the rich clubs would vote for it...

Even a system like that could be 'fiddled' with. A top notch player could be 'encouraged' to ... let's say "take it easy" for a season, his rating would then drop, allowing the club to bring in another highly rated player - the reigns are then taken off the initial player, cheated the system.

Also, what would you base the points system on? Subjective opinion as to how "good" someone is? Try/Points scoring record? metres gained? Tackles made? etc etc.

And the difference to what we have now is what? It's not that there is an uneven playing field that annoys people so much as the powers that be denying it.

The way I would simplify the cap is to have no limit on overall spend but say each club can only have 20 players earning above X salary, and only 6 players earning above Y salary.

You then set X as being what would be a reasonable benchmark for a first team regular.

Set Y as being what would be a reasonable benchmark for a top class international player.

The effect of this one would be that the richest clubs could pay whatever they wanted for their very elite players, but you couldn't get a club hoarding all the top talent, because once their top 6 players had been accounted for, they were then facing a salary limit of Y for the any other player on their books. So the guys who were say the 7th and 8th best players at a top club would then be likely to move to another club who had space on its quota of 6 players above Y salary.

It wouldn't be a perfect system by any means but it would keep the top players away from union and it would distribute talent around the league, after a few years under that system you would hope that each club had at least 6 big gun players.

Its a good idea in theory but entirely misses the point of how the Salary Cap is currently being manipulated.
See Adey's posts.

Phil Clarke could be in charge of making the ratings.

Sam Tomkins would put Wigan over the points cap on his own.

I don't know much about the player talent pool but hopefully Bateman will qualify for that in our team. Will give us a bit more for other players.