You want the likes of Castleford and London to hold back the Super League and to continue trying to make it a level playing field?

You must be joking, how can you enforce a club spends up to the maximum amount?

Think about how that would work in reality? Bizzare statement.

You sound like a poster i used to know on here.

The salary cap as an idea was ok - as long as it was set up with a salary floor (maybe 90%) to keep the clubs at a competitive level. And, it needed to increase. Every year would be too much and too confusing. I would have said it needed to increase in line with every new broad cast deal. So every 3-5years it would have jumped 10-30%. But this needed to have been written into the SL articles so clubs couldn't challenge it. And it needed to have started from the beginning. There's no point now.

You mean the same Wakefield who are not in SL?. Or do you mean Leigh and Salford who are up there playing for a top 6 spot.

Maybe you should look further down the table for teams to have a pop at, instead of your, and your past usernames constant bashing of the 3 above mentioned teams.

Teams doing well, like Salford, without spending the full cap is not a justification for having a small salary cap / cap at all.

Scrapping the cap isn't just about teams like Wigan, St Helens and Warrington spending more and storming ahead of the rest. Its about growing the sport, attracting more players, retaining more players, bringing over better players from Australia.