The cap being cut for more successful teams would represent an inverse relationship. Success creates new challenges in RL (rather than it becoming self-perpetuating like it has in football) - challenges Leeds have met magnificently. That is why I admire them rather more than if they had done this by just waving the dosh.

Our crapness relative to Australia has nowt to do with the cap - the game is huge in Eastern Australia. Removing the cap isn't going to suddenly or even gradually increase participation here or see cash flood into the game here.

So you advocate paying the players who graduated from the youth set up at below their market rate?

Quite true. It will, however, stop the short-termist self-destruction that is currently occuring.

It gave Luke Burgess a chance to become established in a championship team. It allowed Scruton to take on more responsibility and fulfill a more important role at a club, while still getting the extra £5K he felt he was worth. It helped Bradford for obvious reasons. It freed up cap space/cash with which Leeds could reward other players, invest in youth etc. It made it easier for Leeds to operate in the black - one of the few clubs that do. It helped keep a cap on wage inflation - not without its drawbacks, but how much extra would fans be willing to pay for their season tickets to avoid one Lee Smith defection each year? Not much, I'm guessing.

The self perpetuating success in Football comes from the prize money, not the lack of a salary cap,

and it is perpetuated by clubs buying more talented players every season, unlike in RL where you cant even keep the players you had to start with

Which we dont have , therefore we have a salary cap

Luke Burgess would have done that anyway, he did it last year when Scruton was at Leeds. This also has nothing to do with the SC

what 'more responsibility'? he was a first team player at leeds, he is now a first team player at Bradford

and again this has nothing to do with the SC, players moving for better career prospects, more time on the field etc, is irrellevant to the SC


indeed, it allowed them to bring Scruton in so they didnt need to give a shot to a youngster or go and find one,

they can do this anyway, again the cap has no influence here, if Leeds want to use spare cash for other players or youth development they can do, cap or no cap

they can do this anyway, a good business should. If Leeds can only afford to spend £1.6m on wages, they should only spend £1.6m on wages, cap or no cap

if we arent responsible enough as a business to do this, we shouldnt be in SL



this is the one and only thing it does! and the answer to this----tough

its not lee smiths job to subsidise your season ticket,

I think he's banking on a hell of a lot of financial sensibilities from club Chairmen. Isn't this one of the reasons why the cap was introduced?

what the hell?

So now the reason we have a cap is because we dont have prize money? (which we do have but regardless WTF?)

i am indeed, the ones who run their businesses well will prosper, the ones who cant be trusted will fail and be gone,

The young players from the youth set-up aspire to play for the club and work within the culture of that club. If that club has a strict policy on paying players but is a hugely successful organisation then you can select to be a part of that and enjoy all the benefits that go with it (e.g. big games, trophies, WCC, International recognition). If you want to push your earning potential sky high you will go to somewhere like Warrington.

I'm sure the youth set-up at places like Warrington, Hull KR etc. have a completely different set-up. Ask someone like Stuart Reardon whether he enjoyed coming through the ranks at the Bulls, playing in GFs and CCFs and WCC or whether he enjoyed his larger "market rate" salary at Warrington.

And for the RFL - that was heading for a calamatous exit of too many clubs. It's OK saying well, let them go to the wall but what happens when there's only eight clubs left? It does sound bad. Bad that the RFL have to rein in irresponsible clubs but they're looking at the wider picture. Yes, bad for Leeds but safe for the game as a whole.

Damn the cap for not allowing teams to buy more talented players every season. With that unlimited supply of more talented players just waiting to be bought imagine how much better the standards in SL would be.

Indeed, so he has gone to a richer code with a bigger cap. As you say, tough poop.

I think it is worth the sacrifice, such as it is. You don't. Both our positions are legitimate, but we'll never agree which is best.

it isnt though, because it protects and perpetuates failure, long term, this will do serious damage to the game.

Besides, it would always find an equillibrium, a point where players are paid as much as clubs can afford,

If Caddick only needed to spend £1.6m to win SL, why would he spend any more?