How the frig does the salary cap stifle innovation? If anything it encourages it.

Really, i thought it was brought in for exactly that clubs couldn't spend more than 50% of their income on wages. evening up the teams was just a side effect.

rlhttp://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3746,en_41462537_41454856_41476947_1_1_1_1,00.htmlrl
Clubs with less dosh can't keep up with the innovation (cheating) of the richer clubs (Warrington), ergo stifling their innovation. Innovation is supposed to improve things, the salary cap has not.

I'm sorry if this sounds rude, and I really don't mean it personally or anything, but wtf are you on about?

What are you struggling with??

It's a sign of communism, I tells thee!

Hasn't that been mentioned yet?

The entire concept, obviously. Are you seriously suggesting the salary cap should be removed because it prevents clubs cheating?

It was brought in for exactly that reason.


No it was not.


Player salaries is the biggest expense. Putting a limit on that is the most effective way of stopping clubs going bust.

All of it. In what way does a salary cap stifle innovation? What is the link between innovation and "cheating"?

As I said, if anything a salary cap encourages innovation because the money that would have been spent on player wages with no cap in place can be spent elsewhere.

The SC is a waste of space as the RFL don't monitor it.
The clubs have to declare to the RFL salaries of their top 25 highest players. The RFL don't then monitor or check this.
They don't check players tax returns or bank accounts. The whole exercise therefore is utterly worthless.
How can you know what each player is receiving in remuneration if you don't check his personal financial details?

It was brought in for both reasons, but the 50% of income rule that was part of the cap was done away with a few years ago (not that that rule would have helped Bradford anyway). It's undeniable that the cap has helped restrict spending and that it has stopped the big clubs from signing all the best players. The extent to which it has done that and the extent to which it should in the future is debatable.


Not at Leeds it's not.
Whilst I'd agree player salaries are a large expense for clubs, they're also the most predictable expense, yet clubs seem to struggle hugely to control that expense for some reason.

How many outstanding or even very good players are there at the bottom 4 clubs? Chase - who's is off to Hull seemingly and...?
Or make a rep team from the squads of that bottom 4 and another from players at the top 4 with squad numbers >17.
It is in its way admirable that Leeds players have put success before money, but credit too to somebody like Kevin Brown for taking on a different challenge. It's tough at the top, but a damn sight tougher at the bottom.

Of course the "top" players are going to go to the "top" clubs, but it stops the top teams from having a bigger squad of "better" players. No ones suggesting that it's totally evenly spread, it's better than it would be without a cap.

1. Patten
2. Broughton
3. Moon
4. Webster
5. Robertson
6. Gower
7. Dobson
8. Taylor
9. Aiton
10. Kaufusi
11. Lauitiiti
12. Galea
13. Kirmond

14. Chase
15. Amor
16. Huby
17. Nero

Not too bad a team, all from clubs in the bottom 6 teams. If there were no salary cap the vast majority of those players would be at the "top" clubs. I know Broughton and Lauitiiti would still be at Leeds if it werent for the salary cap.

The salary cap is 'live'. Its monitored by the RFL monthly. Why do you think no one has breached it for the last few seasons?

They didn't seem to monitor it until it went wrong at rlBlackpoolrl or
until a player went public at rlBarrowrl
Both in 'the last few seasons'