clubs do have financial difficulties, the same club has contested the last 3 grand finals, some just simply havent done anything at all, some clubs simply dont bother developing juniors whatsoever, some have given up on it completely,

and the standard of the competition has fallen, the game has stagnated somewhat, and the NRL has lost plenty, and i mean plenty, of its quality players to SL and RU,

The reason the NRL is more competitive, is more clubs do more in junior development, the last 3 GFs have been contested by Brisbane, Melbourne and Manly, the vast majority of these teams are made up of products of their youth systems, especially the stars like Carroll, Lockyer, Hodges, Hunt, Carlaw, for Brisbane, Orford, Stewart. Menzies, Stewart, Matai for Manly, Cronk, Smith, Folau, Inglis, Slater, Hoffman, for the Storm,

The spine of all these teams are players who made their debut with them, the salary cap had next to nothing to do with these teams being built, only destroyed

the answer isnt to stop Melbourne Brisbane and Manly from keeping these players, its getting the rest to start producing them

Yes, and the melbourne storm have a very wealthy backer. But are working towards standing alone as we speak. Brian Waldron is a very good operator and is highly regarded by sports proffesionals. With the new stadium, growing membership, sponsorship. They should be viable by the time the new TV rights deal is forged. Relative to years gone by the clubs are spending beyond their means.



It is still the premier rugby competition in the world. It may have lost a few stars towards the end of their careers, but it keeps producing new stars each year. SBW and Gasnier are probably the only two of note in recent years, a while ago we lost Lote, Wendell and Rogers (all wingers at the time). Very debatable point.



BANG! Why do the clubs invest in juniors more heavily these days? One of the major reasons is the salary cap! Speak to Michael Searle of the Titans, look at the money the spend on junior development, they realise that by building a strong junior base players are more likely to stay loyal and can produce and keep players for under market value. Junior development is a way to 'exploit' (for lack of better words) the salary cap.

Brisbane and Melbourne are good examples of development (even if melbourne are pillard from all over the country, Manly arent. Parramatta are another example of a club that develops great talent and rarely buys a big name (apart from 97). Stop picking the dreags out of the NRL and start developing your own talent here, a salary cap will help create this as well as bring a closer, more exciting competition. A level playing field will benefit all clubs and the competition.

but thats not the same throughout the competition unfortunately, whilst Melbourne are moving forward there are clubs who are undoubtedly moving backwards


and Barrett, and Lauitiiti and Buderus, and Eastwood, andHodgeson, and Whatuira and Rooney, and Gower, and Tahu



But that isnt the argument you are making, nor one in favour of the SC. The argument is that the competitivness of of the NRL is down to the SC, and that there are different winners because of the SC, and im saying it isnt, im saying that the reason the NRL is competitive and the reason that there are different winners is because they are more competitive at youth level and in developing youth between each other, they compete for the best youth and compete to make the best of the youth they have, that is down to the structure below NRL, and not the SC

if Anything the SC puts clubs off developing youth as when they peak or start to peak they are likely to lose them to the opposition




so why bother developing that player your going to lose? Melbourne are being punished for scouting and developing Israel Folau, he is going to their opposition a better player because of their investment in him, one of their rivals are a better team because Melbourne did something well, and Melbourne are a worse team for it, and this carries on until you get to a situation like that at the roosters where they have simply given up completely on developing youth and are just going to cherry pick the best of the opposition, thats one opportunity lost already



except we have seen quite clearly that isnt the case, it is the clubs who arent spending the cap, who also arent developing youngsters, and the salary cap only keeps the status quo in that effect,

the NRL is starting to see what SL has seen for the past 12 years, that the SC promotes the status quo, where did Folau go? What have the bunnies complained is their biggest problem?

players want to play for the biggest teams, the biggest teams attract the best players easier, the SC means lower clubs cant upset the applecart, they cant go out and attract the best players because the best players dont want to join Wakefield the same as they dont want to join South Sydney, meaning they have to pay more for fewer players and cant win anything to become a big side

the only thing the SC has done is stop costs spiralling, but that would happen if it was rejigged to promote youth development and promote investment in british players,

the reason that wont happen is that some clubs and their fans arent prepared to be for a couple of years to rebuild their squad, they would rather be mid table,

in the nrl there are some clubs / areas that have lots of juniors, and other areas have little or few.

newcastle, penrith and nz have lots of kids and other clubs do take from these areas.

so in a league where the salary cap works, the club with loads of juniors wont be able to keep everyone and will have to let some go to clubs that dont have juniors.

maybe its not ideal that clubs that dont have many juniors are treated equally with clubs that do, but it still shows how the SC evens up the competition

many have argued that clubs should get dispenations or allowance in the salary cap for players that were developed from the clubs juniors

your idea of SL stagnating is of course one in which crowds are pretty much rising every year.

fantastic posts.

yes, because people go to matches just to check how much the players are paid

crowds are growing in a competition which people enjoy.

crowds wouldnt keep rising in a stagnating competition.

though i guess you might be the kind of fan whose attendance at RL games would stgante if his team wasnt always succesful, hence his selfish defence of the salary cap.

who cares about the good of the game when your own rich club can be up the top all the time

attendances were rising in SL pre salary cap

clubs at the bottom of the league are no closer to winning it than they were at the start of SL,

in fact at the start of SL we had 4 clubs capable of winning the competition,in the first 3 years we had three different teams finishing at the top of the league, and another different one playing in a GF, in the last three years 1 team has finished top, and they have won one gf, and one team have finished second top twice and won the comp twice

there was 8 points between 2nd and 3rd last year, 4 the year before that, and 2 the year before that

the year before that the team in 3rd won the comp,

Leeds have won 3 of the last 5 grand finals and competed in 4 of the last 5, St helens have competed in 3 of the last 5

70% of the last 5 grand finalists have been Leeds or Saints, 80% of the last 5 grand final winners have been Leeds or Saints, 95% of the entire history of Grand Finals have been competed by Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Bradford, 100% of of the entire history of SL have been won by one of those 4 clubs,

but yes, the comp is clearly getting closer and anyone really could win it,

try as you might to paint my argument against the SC is one based on self interest (which manages to make you look even more idiotic than normal) you cant get away from the fact that the SC hasnt, and wont allow lower clubs to build a champion side,

Champion sides are built from scratch, it needs clubs to sacrifice short term pain for long term gain, like leeds did around 2000, like Melbourne did 2001-2005

Getting clubs to invest and KEEP their young players is integral to getting them competitive, if clubs follow the Leeds model, they are MORE likely to challenge Leeds, as Wire found out over the last two years

I personally dont like the salary cap. If anything it inhibits growth and puts an artificial barrier on certain club's potential. I wonder how many potential players have gone to other sports or professions because of the low wages earned by all but the players at the top. I would imagine that even some fringe SL players dont earn a great deal.

The Premier League and other European top flight football leagues are very uncompetitive (in terms of different winners) yet remain the most popular sports in their countries. The Premier League with no salary cap has somehow produced a league whereby 13 clubs are seperated by just 8 points and thats with the 3 point win system. Manchester United are said to have over 330 million fans worldwide, do you think they'd have that many if they weren't as successful? The stagnation issue doesn't stack up when you look at football where no matter what country you look at, the same few teams win the titles and the crowd numbers are still to capacity.

I guess the problem would be what would happen if we got rid of the salary cap and 1 team dominates year after year and there is no challengers ala Wigan pre SL. At least in football you do usually have a battle at the top even if a lot of the teams have no chance of actually winnig the title. I suppose its arguable how much the salary has worked anyway, I mean we've had 3 different winners in 10 years, the supposidly predictable premier league has the same number of champions in the same amount of time. Its not as if you could even talk about lowering the salary cap to give other teams more of a chance, isn't the slary cap in union twice what it is in league already. By limiting the money players can earn will just make the sport even less apealing to potential players especially in areas where football and union is already prominant.

clubs are more important than players.

players come and go, but you want clubs to be around forever.

the SC keeps clubs solvent (or it should) and it will help smaller clubs grow by giving them some success as the big clubs are limited on how much they can spend.

because of the salary cap the nrl has lost 80 players to Super League, at least 10, maybe 20 of those are very good players.

weve lost another 10 to rugby union as well and still the competition is very healthy.

its an exciting competition because every team has a chance of making the semis and even maybe winning the competition

with PL, outside the top 4 clubs, the rest have no chance of winning the title and never will.

waste of time for me.

why? what is your reason for thinking this to be true?

quite clearly there are many stagnant competitions in the world, where the same teams compete over and over for the trophies while the rest struggle that are growing off the field

maybe you could give us one example in either SL or the NRL where a smaller club has won something based on a team built from players signed because they were released by bigger clubs because of the SC



they have lost closer to 50 good players, and that means quite obviously that the game is weaker because of the SC


no they dont, Doggies wont make the semis next year, neither will NQC nor Penrith



except clubs have and do frequently challenge, it just takes time for a challenge to be built, Newcastle did it, Leeds did it, Villa are doing it now, look out for them next year, man city can certainly do it, the Big 4 wasnt a big 4 for many years it was a big 2 until chelsea and liverpool joined, and lets just ignore the year won of the smaller clubs actually won the PL

We have only had two seasons where more clubs are spending the full cap. We still aren't at the point where every club is. When that happens, about 3-4 years later we will see a much more even comp.

I do agree though that the cap does destroy world class teams and the days of ever seeing a dynasty will soon be over as they are now in the NRL.

By Dan Koch
January 21, 2009 MELBOURNE football manager Frank Ponissi has failed to deny his club has been desperately trying to off-load at least two more members of its senior squad in a bid to ease pressure on its salary cap for the 2009 season.

Storm officials have contacted rival clubs over the off-season, including North Queensland, Wests Tigers, Brisbane and St George Illawarra, to sound out their interest in picking up the contracts of fringe prop Scott Anderson and winger Steve Turner.

Like so many champion teams before them, Melbourne has become a victim of its own success, with coach Craig Bellamy's starting 17 this year bearing little resemblance to the one which powered to the 2007 premiership.

While no one could argue the success of the salary cap as a competition-equalising tool, many within the game have questioned whether penalising a club for excellence flies in the face of the most basic principles of professional sport.

Having pieced together and developed his squad into the competition's most dominant force over the past three years, Bellamy has been forced to watch on helplessly as his squad was torn apart. [/i