Go on then, what were those *specific* reasons? People seem to think they know what they are, but I've never seen those reasons listed ( they might be for all I know, I've just never seen them )

FWIW the reasons behind salary and squad control (and I put them together because they're not seperate issues) *should* be:

Prevent a club from spending more that *it* can afford.
Prevent a club from having too many top players in the squad but outside the first XIII (it cheats the game's fans to have the top players in clubs reserves, rather than in others' first XIII )
Prevent a club from having too many overseas players
Encourage a club to have a strong academy

This is a genuine question, in that I don't know the answer, but was 'Equalize competition' ever listed by the RFL as a specific goal? In my opinion its a stupid goal because it impossible to acheive without screwing the game. I'd welcome the RFL listing the specific reasons ( and would hope that 'equalize' wouldn't be one of them ), because once you've specifically defined what you're trying to acheive you have a better chance of designing a system to do it.

One of the problems with the salary cap, at least as fans are concerned, is that people have widely different views about what the cap is supposed to be for. People bang on about the cap without explaining *what* they want it to actually do. The cap isn't some sacred cow, its just an instrument of control, one of many possible ways to control the finances of the game to the game's advantage. I'd rather argue about what specifically we're trying to acheive first - the rest is implementation details.

If I've read the cap regulations correctly, transfer fees are exempt - so as well as Joel's wages he could have picked up the 250k transfer fee paid by Saracens.

If you mean Wigan could have given the £250k from Joel's transfer to Sam, no, that would not be legal. He would need to pay tax on it and it would count on the cap as it would just be Wigan paying him an extra £250k. Unless Sam owned Joel personally.

It's possible I'm misinterpreting the 2009 cap regulations but pages 30/31 state:

5.0 NON-SALARY CAP RELEVANT INCOME
5.1 Sale Proceeds from the sale of assets.
5.2 Transfer Fee Income received.
5.3 Any Challenge Cup Prize Money as per the schedule issued from time to time should be excluded from income providing the following is observed.
5.3.1 The prize money is paid to the players within 60 days of receipt by the club.
5.3.2 Any excess of bonus over prize money received and paid out by the club is
classed as Salary Cap relevant cost.
5.3.3 Any excess of prize money over bonus paid out may be included as Salary Cap relevant income.
For the avoidance of doubt, any payments paid out by clubs prior to receipt of prize money, cannot be retrospectively or notionally set off against prize money.