The point I was making here, which thought was quite clear, was the point you were responding to bore no relation to what I had said
A fair few. As a standout the Salary Cap would make it impossible for them to compete on a level playing field, but as you have already admitted you don’t want a level playing field you want it stacked against Crusaders, even going so far as to preclude them from promotion im sure that wouldn’t bother you.

The bit where you want them playing by the same rules but then insist they play by different rules, like this
Its fairly simple, Whatever investment or funding the RFL give Crusaders will result in a benefit to them on the field. It will do this because whatever the RFL fund, Crusaders no longer need to, and can use that money to strengthen themselves on the field.

But you dont actually tell us on here

So you want a bigger salary cap for a club that has recently gone into administration , had to borrow £ 700 K from the RFL and then found itself unsustainable due to lack of income ?

Brilliant

How can a salary cap prevent an even playing field? Surely it is a good safety valve to prevent clubs going bust, if applied stringently and fairly?

Also, surely its an incentive for clubs to improve their business plan if they are unable to spend the full cap?

It may even allow crusaders to pay some of the RFL their £700,000 back!

Just because it they have it, doesn’t mean they need to spend it. Not everyone is as stupid as you are. But it does mean when they are in a position to spend it, they are in a position to compete and not hampered by rules but in place by and for heartland clubs.

Because if Leigh for instance are surrounded by SL clubs, with the overspill from their academies, are competing with Crusaders for a player, and you are that player who are you going to choose to play for? Leigh offering you £10k a year or Crusaders for the same amount who are quite a bit further away?

So logically, Crusaders would need to offer a bit more to make themselves attractive to those same players.

Would you advocate teams in Cumbria having a bigger Salary Cap then teams from Yorkshire and Lancashire? After all, they are further away from the same players than North Wales.

Yes, Id be comfortable with that. But I would mitigate it by the fact there is a very strong amatuer game in Cumbria which I would expect them to take advantage of.

When that amateur game in Wales is at the same level, their allowance would be reduced.

Same would go for Skolars, SWS, and Quins.

At the same time clubs in areas surrounded by SL clubs will lose all of their best players and any young prospects to the bigger clubs, so that's a disadvantage as well as an advantage.

" just because it they have it " means what exactly ?

So you are suggesting that each clubs salary cap should be judged on how far they are from SL clubs ?

Is that motorway mileage , or as the crow flies ?

Is it just the nearest club , or should it be decided by how many clubs are within a certain radius ?

Interesting concept , totally barmy , but interesting

It would be great for Gateshead and SWS , bit of a bugger for

So players like Andy Thornley and Jamie Ellis wouldn't be able to sign for local clubs , but would have to travel to south Wales or the north east , that'd work well



You really are losing the plot

So you would ' mitigate ' it ? , how would you ' mitigate ' say Leigh,Hunslet,Swinton,Batley,Dewsbury,Halifax,Keighley not being allowed to pay their own produced junior players as much money as they would like to because of a salary cap ?

How would that encourage Championship clubs to produce their own players ?

How would you gauge when an amateur level in Wales is at the same level as in Cumbria ?

Surely Skolars wouldn't have as big a salary cap as SWS because of Quins ?