of course Paul Caddick loves the salary cap, i bet he wishes he could have one in the construction trade aswell

he would be an idiot not to love it, it keeps his workers wages down, it means he can blame something other than himself for not paying them their true market worth, whilst pocketing the profits.

Running a business would be a peice of in salary capped world, you just pay your workers less and less until you are profitable and then sit back and pretend you are a well run company!

the only people who benefit from a salary cap are the owners,

And the fans. And the sponsors. And Sky. Oh and the players because the fans, sponsors and Sky all bring more money into the game which is mainly spent on salaries.

Bollox.

No salary cap, and we end up with one or two very wealthy individuals buying a team of superstars, with no-one else getting a look-in. Sky would not pay for a competition totally dominated by a small handful of teams, and neither would the fans or sponsors. So soon all you would have would BE a competition comprising a small handful of teams. And then an owner calls it a draw or pops his clogs or gets divorced or gets the religio0n or whatever, and his team is immediately kaput...

Yup. What he said.

Seriously , has Lee Smith stated he is leaving Leeds because he wants more money off them to stay ?

yes, the players definately benefit from capping their wages, its so clear now, earning less is what players want, its why they play our game, to earn less money!

and sponsors, they love it, they cant get enough of being associated with a 2nd class game! being linked to mediocre wages really help them sell that dream! Just think, they flock to RL, they want their names to be synonymous with earning slightly more than the average person

and lets not forget sky, oh ive heard rupert murdoch is buzzing off his tits that Nick Scruton had to switch clubs to earn £500 a month more

.................yeah, there's no sponsorship whatsoever in the game is there?

super league is dominated by a small number of clubs, and that number has got smaller the longer we have had SL,

its quite embarrassing how emotionally scarred this game seems to be because wigan were successful for a little while

comparatively no!

we have very few blue chip sponsors and comparatively little money coming in from sponsorship

Because there are considerably less willing rich owners than there are clubs looking for such owners. And in the present economic climate that situation is likely only to worsen. And if it became a free-for-all so some of those rich owners could spend what they wanted, then it is probable many of thos other rich owners would say sod this and exit.

If, say, Caddick found himself in need of funds (reason irrelevant) and sold out to a private equity vehicle (they haven't entirely gone away), who needed to squeeze maximum cash flow from the club for minimum investment to service and repay the loans, and if say the competition was still owned by guys pouring in the cash, and if this change of circumstances meant Leeds could no longer keep anywhere near up with those other clubs in player salary spend, would you still be such a keen advocate of no-cap?

...............and if we did away with the SC this would change?

So you want to make it worse? Is there any reason to believe it wouldn't be worse without the salary cap?

yes, because the cap doesnt equal and even or equal game, it never has done, not in any sport, any where

the reason we dont have an equal game, is because we dont produce enough quality players, its because the step down below the best players is too big,

the reason Australia is so strong isnt the SC, but the fantastic player pathways they have,

the key to evening up the league isnt the SC, all that does is stop players finding their true worth, but to get more players of sufficient quality,

is there any reason to think it would be worse?

is there any reason to think maybe some clubs would be closer to saints and leeds if they could spend a little more rather than further away?