Or your youth systems aren't as good, or your training and conditioning hasn't been as good, or your sports science isn't as good etc all need money spending on them.

Or that other clubs have better youth development which in turn provided a bigger squad and more strength in depth.

I'm afraid you need to wake up and see the world around you. The days of plenty are long, long gone. Britain hasn't even begun to make inroads into the massive debts the financial sector ran up and already the RAC is talking about the growing numbers of people sleeping in their cars because they can't afford the fuel costs to work. Do you honestly believe Union - or any other sport - will be desperate to squander their diminishing incomes on any more than a handful of players who don't even know the rules of the game? Club rugby union is on its and we are now beginning to see empty seats where there were none prior at international games (the Australia fixture for example). Union, like most sports, has been living in an inflated wages bubble for years and they are starting to pay the price. The NRL is looking healthier, but not so that it can continue ratcheting the costs up forever. Besides, the NRL isn't so hamstrung in terms of quality that it needs to dip frequently into SL.



And you were there at the George Hotel (presumably sampling the atmosphere and taking notes) when the game was formed?



Opening up the wages faucet won't prevent Union from taking League players if it really wants them. Ditto the NRL.



I'd argue it is far less unimaginative than spending even more money. In any case, I offered it as a very rough marker for a debate on leveling the playing field so that all-but closed groups of clubs don't buy up all the talent and dominate the competition. And whilst high wages don't necessarily guarantee similar levels of performance, the fact that the biggest spenders (when measured over a suitably long timeframe) are very rarely at or near the bottom of the competition bears out at least some measure of a relationship.



So, St. Helens (for instance), a club which had nigh-on bankrupted itself attempting to compete with Wigan (a club which had bankrupted itself buying up the majority of the league's best talent), was [imore deserving[/i of an incredibly fortunate last-minute injection of cash from a reasonably wealthy investment banker than many other clubs which had safeguarded their futures (whilst all but guaranteeing on-the-field inferiority to the former) by spending no more than they could afford? I mean, you've not yet resorted to the "they're unsuccessful because they're workshy" argument, but I'm guessing it isn't far away.

It's a risky career option, but it's not an insurmountable problem. Any significant cut to the salary cap would have to be accompanied by some form guarantee that the club and the game would take steps to provide players with the means to pursue an alternative career of their choice once they are finished (funding for an academic or vocational qualification) - apprentice partnerships with local businesses etc. etc. Such schemes already exist at certain clubs and I'm sure they could be improved upon.

In any case, I think you are overstating the scale of the problem. How many League players could realistically have earned fantastic wages outside of the game? Many I've spoken to are eternally grateful to League as they have few ideas about where they could succeed in the outside world. Moreover, "decent" wages are becoming ever more difficult to find in this country and the trend won't improve any time soon.



We've stood the loss of all but the entire pack to Australia, Ashton, Eastmond, Tomkins et al to Union. The last time I checked the game hadn't imploded. Nor is it likely to.

No more of a lack of income than, say, Union is facing. Lately it seems like nary a week goes by without me seeing one or many of their correspondents bleating about falling revenue or gates. So it's not like only SL is suffering.



You've completely confused me here. First you draw a direct relationship between money and "quality". In the next sentence you draw another between money and "entertainment". Now, I might be going out on a limb suggesting the more money you spend the higher you are likelier to finish - but at least I can go some way toward testing this claim by mapping expenditure vs league position. "Quality" and "Entertainment" are highly abstract value judgments. I mean, YOU might think the league's "Quality" will be diluted by less expenditure, but it doesn't automatically follow that everyone else will agree.

My goal was to increase "competitiveness" by preventing small groups of clubs (or one - as was the case with Wigan) from dominating through greater financial muscle. Now, I'll concede that the term "competitiveness" is more abstract than a club's league position. But I think it is, at the very least, reasonable to suggest a Super League in which no team can take a financial shortcut to success is more likely to be competitive (certainly under the etymology of the word as I understand it) than one which allows such.

Of course, it DOES NOT follow that a competitive league will necessarily deliver the skill, speed, athleticism and ferocity the game currently prides itself on. It's perfectly possible to have a completely unpredicatable league filled with mediocrity. Which is why we would need to do more than simply slash expenditure and commit to greater intervention.

I think you have to look at this question over a lengthy period of time. There are only so many top-tier players in SL and almost all of them are tied into lengthy "golden handcuff" contracts. It's simply unrealistic to expect any side outside of the "big 4" or "big 5", no matter how much money is spent, to win SL within two or three years of increased investment.

I mean, sure - it's possible you could bring in a couple of NRL worldbeaters, somehow luck out on the coach of the century whilst two or three of the brightest prospects in years emerge from the academy. But is it probable? No. A more realistic - if albeit far longer - path to success would be to steadily chisel away talent from the other top teams, exert your increased financial clout in signing the best juniors money can buy (who will still take the best part of five years to develop) and hope to god you don't sign some coaching duffer.

I'd argue that money is far less important than certain essential skills - such as the ability to read plain English. Next time, before you puff out that quaint little sparrow chest and gulp down the spinach I'd advise you to open up your one good eye and read the comprehensive and foolproof disclaimers I included which state [i"money does not absolutely guarantee success". [/i



You've bored me already.

Some points for Mugwump to respond to:

The standard of SL is as bad as it has been since its inception - do you really think the standard would be unaltered if the likes of Graham, Burgess, Ashton & Eastmond were still in RL? Your view that talented players can just leave the game and it would not affected doesn't stand scrutiny.

Is the game imploding - I would say yes, I can see a further 3/4 clubs going under during this year, none of these clubs will spend anything like the full cap.

What would you suggest as a suitable salary cap? and would you expect the current players to take a 30% pay cut?

Rather tan have a minimum wage maybe we need a minimum income - if a club cannot generate £4m then it should not get a licence.

Finally Sky need a product on which it can sell advertising - you are suggesting reducing the quality on offer, why should Sky continue to pay the same money for a worse product?

What next winter rugby?

Yes, I have absolutely no doubt that our best players can and will move to other sports/leagues and the less we pay them, the more this will happen.

I also have no doubt that more players will choose a career outside the game if we pay them less.


No, just aware of the well documented history of the formation of our game.

Yes it will, as it always has.

It is particularly, supremely, unbelievably unimaginative. It is tired old ideology which has been disproved time and time again.

[/] No club, not one, none, nil, zero, clubs have only ever spent wha they have brought in, all have at some stage had credit and outside investment. The idea that St's dont deserve success because they could have gone bust, but didnt because they had enough money to not go bust is absolutely hilarious.

How polite! Your exaggerated sense of infallibility in your own rhetoric is inherently flawed, I merely pointed this out with a couple of examples. Always remember, other opinions are available.

You are assuming the likes of Union and the NRL (which has functioned perfectly well without large numbers of SL imports) will have plenty of surplus money to throw around in the future. The evidence suggests Union is struggling as much as league - perhaps moreso. My guess is their inflated wages bubble, like ours, will burst.



And I also have no doubt that as wages continue to decline in this country more youngsters will think twice about giving up on league.



I've yet to see much evidence of this.



Adding words such as "particularly", "supremely" etc. to an argument from authority doesn't elevate it to truth.

You seem a little confused here. Whilst Eastmond (and possibly Ashton) did seem to be motivated purely by profit, Burgess, Graham (and Ellis) wanted to play at a higher level in Australia. We could have paid twice the money and they still would have left.



Really? I thought we had a cracking end of season without most of our starting pack.



I can't pin down a precise figure, which is why I offered the question up for general discussion. Would the players be happy? Of course not. Would we suffer considerable short term consequences? Yes. But what consequences will we suffer if we continue under the current model? How happy will players be when their clubs (and wages) disappear from under them?



I wouldn't object to that. But it still leaves us in the position where teams with two or three times the income can destabalise the game.



I really don't understand the seemingly automatic assumption that both reducing and leveling the wage structure must ultimately reduce the quality. If I pay Sam Tomkins 30% less does he suddenly become 30% less effective?

I mean, sure - I understand the worry that the top earners will leave en masse. I don't think this is a certainty because not all players are motivated by money or a desire to play in the NRL or Union.

Yes - some will leave. But without the customary cadre of a "big 4" we would have a far less predictable competition where talent and coaching take precidence over a beefy wallet.

If you look at the evidence, then it is pretty clear that the NRL will have more money to throw around in the future. Why wouldn’t they spend it on better players?


So you’re hoping that economic deflation affects the whole nation enough to bring down wages for RL players and make other careers less attractive. If we accept this frankly mental premise, who is going to be able to afford tickets?


You've yet to see evidence of the well documented history of the formation of our game?
I know, they are adjectives, they are used to describe things. HTH

There was a question in that rambling nonsense?

No, he goes somewhere else and becomes 100% less effective.

The Championships are a competition with a low SC and which is unpredictable.

Yet people, in general, still don’t want to go watch, screen it on TV, pay millions in broadcast contracts and sponsorship or play in it.

What you seem to be saying is that (taking it to an extreme for arguments sake) we could get away with paying all our players an equal, low wage, say £25k across the board. We wouldn't need to worry what effect it would have because it would increase competitiveness and unpredictability. And we needn't worry about players leaving for other sports/leagues/careers because there are always some lads who don't know what else they'd do. I'm not knocking those type of lads - but surely we don't want to exclude lads who have a genuine chance of even a slightly better career elsewhere?

There is a business saying that says something like if you aren't growing you are standing still and standing still means you will get left behind and die. We ought to be doing everything possible to grow RL - geographically, demographically and economically. Everything should be done in balance and proportion yes, but let's not just give up and reduce the appeal, breadth and diversity!