Quote RLBandit="RLBandit"Well, with your absolute guarantee in place, we have nothing to worry about. In reply to the other poster, yes, correct, I have no data. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, kind of data to gather reliably - " count the number of people who haven't given RL a thought, but maybe would have given RL a thought if the were sport bigger, more attractive and more lucrative". Am I 'speculating'? Yes. However, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to suggest a link between numbers taking up the sport and the profile of the sport, which is in turn linked to the sport's ability to provide lucrative income to star players (amongst other things of course). So obviously 'not ridiculous' does the argument sound to me, that I will, in my own mind, believe it to be an accurate summary of the way the world works, passing the burden-of-proof otherwise to those people who would disagree. 150 people who [idid[/i take up RL tells me absolutely nothing useful in that regard - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias The other poster indeed undermines his own point by mentioning the tiny player pool. In summary, I believe there is a long-term connection between our decision to shut money out of the game, preventing clubs investing in player talent, and the very fact that the pool is so small. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong '" So you have no data, seemingly no experience, keep making up things people didn't actually write, and lots of speculation. I can see this going a long way.....

Quote RLBandit="RLBandit"Well, with your absolute guarantee in place, we have nothing to worry about. In reply to the other poster, yes, correct, I have no data. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, kind of data to gather reliably - " count the number of people who haven't given RL a thought, but maybe would have given RL a thought if the were sport bigger, more attractive and more lucrative". Am I 'speculating'? Yes. However, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to suggest a link between numbers taking up the sport and the profile of the sport, which is in turn linked to the sport's ability to provide lucrative income to star players (amongst other things of course). So obviously 'not ridiculous' does the argument sound to me, that I will, in my own mind, believe it to be an accurate summary of the way the world works, passing the burden-of-proof otherwise to those people who would disagree. 150 people who [idid[/i take up RL tells me absolutely nothing useful in that regard - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias The other poster indeed undermines his own point by mentioning the tiny player pool. In summary, I believe there is a long-term connection between our decision to shut money out of the game, preventing clubs investing in player talent, and the very fact that the pool is so small. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong '" So you have no data, seemingly no experience, keep making up things people didn't actually write, and lots of speculation. I can see this going a long way.....

I'll agree with you on that point, without a doubt. Popular sports attract more young players, in the same way that sports with fewer barriers to entry (for example, finance) attract more young players. But RL's lack of popularity has nothing to do with the salary cap.

Where I disagree is with the notion that young players look at our salary cap and say "nah, I'll go and trial for Leicester Tigers or Manchester United instead". The salary cap, in my view, doesn't enter into the thought process of the vast majority of young players (most of whom will never get close to having to worry about how well a living from RL pays).

Does the salary cap affect the profile of the sport? Again I don't think so and the anecdotal evidence from Sam Burgess suggests as much. Sam could earn a bloody good living at Souths - he already lives like a minor celebrity down there - so why would he leave what is, presumably, an amazing lifestyle for a guy in his mid-20s? I'd suggest that he is doing it for the opportunity to represent his country in the most competitive form of international rugby.

The poor profile of English RL isn't due to a salary cap, it is down to a number of fundamental failings by individual clubs, the lack of a credible international game and poor commercial decisions by the governing body. Throwing more money at the likes of Lee Mossop, Mike Cooper and Jordan Baldwinson doesn't address that.

Quote RLBandit="RLBandit"Well, with your absolute guarantee in place, we have nothing to worry about. In reply to the other poster, yes, correct, I have no data. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, kind of data to gather reliably - " count the number of people who haven't given RL a thought, but maybe would have given RL a thought if the were sport bigger, more attractive and more lucrative". Am I 'speculating'? Yes. However, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to suggest a link between numbers taking up the sport and the profile of the sport, which is in turn linked to the sport's ability to provide lucrative income to star players (amongst other things of course). So obviously 'not ridiculous' does the argument sound to me, that I will, in my own mind, believe it to be an accurate summary of the way the world works, passing the burden-of-proof otherwise to those people who would disagree. 150 people who [idid[/i take up RL tells me absolutely nothing useful in that regard - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias The other poster indeed undermines his own point by mentioning the tiny player pool. In summary, I believe there is a long-term connection between our decision to shut money out of the game, preventing clubs investing in player talent, and the very fact that the pool is so small. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong '" So hang on you have nothing to back you up apart from your belief and yet you finish off with 'You may disagree, but you'd be wrong'? Laughable.

Quote RLBandit="RLBandit"Well, with your absolute guarantee in place, we have nothing to worry about. In reply to the other poster, yes, correct, I have no data. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, kind of data to gather reliably - " count the number of people who haven't given RL a thought, but maybe would have given RL a thought if the were sport bigger, more attractive and more lucrative". Am I 'speculating'? Yes. However, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to suggest a link between numbers taking up the sport and the profile of the sport, which is in turn linked to the sport's ability to provide lucrative income to star players (amongst other things of course). So obviously 'not ridiculous' does the argument sound to me, that I will, in my own mind, believe it to be an accurate summary of the way the world works, passing the burden-of-proof otherwise to those people who would disagree. 150 people who [idid[/i take up RL tells me absolutely nothing useful in that regard - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias The other poster indeed undermines his own point by mentioning the tiny player pool. In summary, I believe there is a long-term connection between our decision to shut money out of the game, preventing clubs investing in player talent, and the very fact that the pool is so small. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong '" So hang on you have nothing to back you up apart from your belief and yet you finish off with 'You may disagree, but you'd be wrong'? Laughable.

Rugby Union and NRL have a far higher cap than we could ever offord so increasing cap only means we are paying more money for the same pool of talent.The only people that like that idea are players for obvious reasons, and Chairman who want to buy success by pouching the best talent from other super league clubs.

Thats it in a nut shell please close thread

If we want to improve the numbers of players in RL, then you are looking at grassroots expansion to allow Cornish teenagers the option of playing for fun, amateur level. Got nothing to do with the cap.

You are also looking at a wider Geographical spread of pro and semi pro RL clubs across the nation.

If you are simply talking about spending more money on the same players we already have then you are talking about increasing the cap.


Also when Saints lost Eastmond and Graham it was not for more money.

Eastmond was offered the same money as Union offered. But Union offered more exposure and an international scene that Saints could not.
The NRL offered Graham a lifestyle and competition that Saints could not. Again he was offered the same money by Saints.

We need a wider base of players so that if we lose a Graham, then there is another Graham already a rung below ready to step up and take that spot.

I'm not a fan of the cap, but I am a fan of clubs spending within their means.

Imagine if you put a breakeven cap in place, suddenly clubs have to start looking at the bottom line rather than speculation on certain players.

I don't think either that many youngsters would ever think the exact thought "hmm, not interested in that because there's a salary cap".

The point is a general one, that a sport with a higher profile will find it easier to attract young players. I don't need 'evidence' to make that assertion, because the opposite of that point would be so ridiculous as to not be worth arguing with.

I assert that the current cap is a barrier to raising the sport's profile (please note, that does not imply that I think raising the cap is by itself anything like sufficient to fix all the problems). I think one could rationally disagree with me there - I'd say you were wrong, but would listen respectfully to your reasons.

Every single 'cap' debate seems to rapidly end up with the pro-cap brigade mischaracterising the rest of us as wanting no salary controls whatsoever. Very few people actually argue for that. For example, I see merit in no upper total cap (other than what you can afford naturally) but very tight limits on the number you can pay more than, say 50k, e.g. Just 13. That would open up different strategies for success - the strength of your 'second tier' would be massively important to get through a season successfully.

No doubt my scheme is full of flaws, but that's not really the point, I'm sure there are much better ideas, but the current situation is ridiculous and my interest in the game is waning because I enjoy watching the best.

And by the way, I played amateur for 15 years and have watched Wigan for 35.

I am sorry, but can anyone name one benefit if the cap were to be increased? I can think of 10 disadvantages. But not one benefit. If anything, I would lower the cap.

As has been said, money isn't the reason necessarily players are leaving, lowering the cap would start to make it a reason so do t do that!

Raising the cap would allow more average ageing Aussies over paraded as "marquee" signings.

Allowing clubs 1 marquee exemption will lead to players demanding over the top salaries when they know a club hasn't filled that quota - how quickly before we see a dire player paraded as marquee just because they're free on the cap? There aren't enough "marquees" in the game for every club in super league to have one.

Reward clubs for home grown players. Reward them more for home grown players who go on to play for England/ knights. Reward english players for making the world XIII by making them exempt for any club in England (and thus can demand the salary they are worth in england, whether that be at their home town club or elsewhere) - the salary cap can then becomes less populatedas it's only for bringing the best British talent into clubs and the best from abroad, bigger share for everyone, players stay cos they can get more money elsewhere

Any club in administration is refused entry to super league for the new company.

Genuine question (because I know people have different views), do you think the rapid rise of Man City over the last few years is a good or bad thing for football in the UK?

I think I know what you are getting at would it not be great if we can find a lot of rich Arab's to come and buy our clubs, and buy who they want to with no cap to worry about,

but to work we would need more then one it would not happen but we can dream

Bang on, particularly this part.

This assumes that the Cap is at the ‘goldilocks’ number, not too high, not too low, but just right. Im not sure why we would assume this figure is exactly right.

Bollocks. Sorry but that is nonsense. There are only going to be 12 Super League clubs, there are comfortably more than 12 players in Rugby League who could realistically be ‘marquee’, Hell there is more than 12 in SL who could be ‘marquee’.

The SC can’t achieve that. There should be rewards for home-grown players and for british squads, but the SC isn’t the place to do it. It would make british players more expensive, concentrate them at fewer clubs and entrench the haves and have-nots. Lowering the cap for overseas players also doesn’t guarantee we will have fewer, it leaves us with the very real possibility we have the same number of overseas players, they are just of inferior quality.

The SC is supposed to spread talent, reduce wage inflation, keep clubs solvent, and is a levelling measure. It doesn’t do all these, it cant do all these. Lets have 4 different measures to address 4 different problems.


Why would anyone then buy a club which is in administration?