that isn't the reality at all. If 80% of clubs were spending exactly the amount they could under the SC it would be an insane coincidence.

The reality is we are losing the best talent out of SL. Tomkins, Eastmond, Graham, 3x Burgess, would be 6 of the 10 best players in SL were they here. The other reality is that the salary cap has got precisely nothing to do with how much teams can afford. It is an arbitrary figure that bears no relationship at all to affordability. The RFL themselves came out earlier in the year crowing about how it was time for SL clubs to spend more, that some super stars were affordable. The true reality is that SL is made up of some clubs who cannot afford to be there with the cap as it is now.

The cap is solely a tool to hold back the top clubs and transfer the financial risk from owners to players.

Homegrown exemptions etc have nothing to do with affordability, 300k is no more affordable for a player you developed than one you didn't.

In a P+R league where there are next to no demands on facilities or youth development or any of the other demands for long term investment the game needs, a Salary Cap is entirely out of place.

In fact, I think it is pretty immoral. IF we place no demands on owners to invest in the long term development of the game then we shouldn't protect them from their own idiocy and we certainly shouldn't limit a players earning potential for the profitability of clubs who have in their wisdom voted to have 0 responsibility to the wider game.

If clubs, as they have voted, want the only deciding factor for their progression to be the side they put on the field, then the players that make up that side should have the market decide their value, not a cap on salaries.

What we have right now is the massively hypocritical and exploitative situation where the RFL and clubs are telling us that it is 'unfair' to have demands that a club get a decent stadium, or decent fan base and all the other demands that were there under franchising, and that the only deciding factor in a clubs progression is their results, yet those responsible for those results should have their earnings limited to an agreed level by a cooperating cabal, so that those self same clubs who didn't invest in a decent stadium, haven't grown their fanbase and haven't put in place a sustainable business model can afford to compete.

We should have the simplest rule, if you don't want your business to be run for the good of the game, then the game will not protect you from your own greed or the intrinsic limits in your business. No franchising, no high minimum standards, no additional demands in terms of investment in to the club, no salary cap. Its not up to the players to prop up your failing business you refuse to invest in.

The "game" would love no regulation, but the lack of regulation will mean no game in a very short period.

The current "top clubs" take all scenario, in this country, does the game no favours at all, it just moves the deckchairs on a sinking ship around.

Remove the cap and you essentially kill the professional game in the UK inside 10 years and in Australia within 20.

Fear: for when logic and reason have deserted you.

How do you know what would happen? You don't so don't go on like your an expert on how clubs are run.

I have 2 words for you[size. DAVID HUGHES [/size

Indeed. That said, given the amount of debt that most clubs are laden with, I would hazard a guess at "BADLY" as a description of how clubs are run.

With relegation back in the mix and the fiscal consequence of dropping down, clubs at the wrong end of the table would overspend in a desperate spending frenzy to avoid the drop. Clubs like Wakey, castleford, Hull KR etc would be forced to either pay the salaries that Salford can offer or miss out on players and dice with the drop.
Our TV deal is about 20 million a year.......we can't afford to play soccer type monopoly.


Psssst.....just pointing out that being good at making money doesn't always translate to knowing how to run a club.

They won't be forced to pay anything? If they don't have the money they shouldn't pau it simple as that, it's the old case of if I put my hand in the fire.

Salford went through that for years and years before the salary cap and so did other teams? Why is this generation any differently that's sport for you.

3.5478515625:5