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?

no, which was my point,



the SC doesnt benefit sponsors, the sponsorship of the game and the SC are largely independant of each other

That would explain why the likes of Hudds and HKR and Wakey and Cas did so dreadfully this year.and Wire and Bulls and Hull so well then? And why next year the table will probably look very different again to this year?

So you are saying we should not artificially try to ' even ' things up between clubs ?

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=14643543#14643543Yes[/url.

they were awful, the entire league was awful this year, Leeds won the league by four points without getting out of third gear until the play offs, saints finished second despite being pretty poor



and yes, for the third year in a row, we have the same champions, we have the same two grand finalists,



two clubs which between them, in the past 6 years, have won the league by a record points total, scored a record amount of points, won 5 of the 6 grand finals and 6 of the 6 league leaders shields, and 4 of the 6 challenge cups,and they have taken 9 of the possible 12 grand final berths



the fact bradford were a bit pants this season doesnt make it a competitive year, Leeds and Saints were the top two all season, and no one really got close,



someone else won the challenge cup though, two new teams in the final, that must show its competitiveness yeah? and these were two small clubs werent they? not backed by a rich owner? only surviving because of the cap?

as a principle, if it can be avoided no we shouldnt,



we should allow clubs to be run by those that own them



but there are certain things we need clubs to do (i.e, invest in spreading the game, in youth development and in marketing the game) that left to their own devices they probably wouldnt do to the level we needed.



So we can put things in place to encourage (or force) clubs to do these things,



but 'evening' up the league artificially is wrong, because you cant 'even' up the league artificially without punishing what has been successful (by stopping them or hampering them in their pursuit of more success) and rewarding what hasnt

so a hypothesis not backed up by history



thats some great evidence there

So all clubs should have the same overseas quota's ?

alll clubs starting from the same basis yes!



expansion clubs, in fact any club which joins SL, regardless of where they are from, will be unable to put out a competitive team with the same overseas quota



there arent enough players to go around the 12 english teams we have now, a new club in its first season arent going to be able to put together a team of english players from outside SL good enough to be in SL, it is impossible



whether you are Leigh, Widnes, Newcastle or Plymouth

Apart from when it did happen. Care to actually suggest any reason why it wouldn't happen again? It seems a perfectly natural progression, clubs will keep spending more and more (on the same players, nothing will improve on the pitch) until all the best players are at the one club that pay the most (by which point standards have nose dived 'cos no other clubs can compete).

Who mentioned SL ?

crikey, if wigan won a trophy, it really wont be that bad,



in fact, their dominance was a little like Leeds dominance now, if leeds keep it going a few more years im sure you will have anther boogie man to try and scare people into believing some other arbitrary limit is needed



after all, it seems any success damages the game



because clubs are no longer run by second hand car salesmen, we are now a fully pro, international sport, with (for a large part) administrators to match



if we cant trust a club to be run responsibly, they shouldnt be in SL





i hate to point this out to you, again, but there is a very very simple answer to this issue



produce more than 25 quality players, in fact, if we could produce, say 200, then they would have to be spread around the league, which would then be competitive



it would also lead to wages levelling off, whats the point in spending £500k on Fielden if there is 15 others who are almost as good in the league