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

as we now know, the SC is merely a guide in the lower leagues

We were talking about overseas quota's

You are a hypocrit

Has Lee Smith stated he is leaving Leeds because he wanted more money off them ?

its not hypocrisy to have two different attitudes, to two different things,

and no, surprisingly Lee Smith hasnt come out and said "i would rather not come work for my new employers but i like money and they offered more, ill be gone as soon as the gravy train stops"

yet he has gone to play a game he hasnt really played before and they are offering him more money

However back here in the real world most SL clubs are (like the majority of professional sports clubs) run as a side interest of wealthy backers. They are not businesses that make money. They are run by individuals who just want to see their team be successful. Given the short term option of throwing a lot of money at a few players then that's the way many will choose to go.



Just like that? Who's going to produce these players? Where are they going to learn their trade? Without competitive matches to play in how is this going to happen? There's little point in investing in the long term if you'll never reap the rewards of that investment so if someone is simply going to make your best players offers they can't refuse - why bother?

Maybe if the world was different then there wouldn't be a need for the salary cap. If there was some natural value or worth of a player and no club offered them more than that. If all clubs could afford to spend as much as they liked on players.

No , well you have no argument then , he has obviously gone for the increased profile of the sport and the challenge

As for hypocrisy , yes it is you have argued long and hard that expansion clubs need different quota numbers to artificially ' even ' up the leagues they play in , but you argue against the SC when that is there to achieve the same in SL

It suits your club therfore you agree with it , you care no more for the sport than I do , you care only for your club

So - for the avoidance of doubt:

IF Leeds found itself without a rich owner (say like Bradford) and had to rely solely on income from fans (those who still keep the faith), sponsors, Sky and the RFL. Say Caddick had to pull out with little notice, and Hetherington needed to retire so you lose the money and the drive; and

IF clubs like Wire and Wigan and Saints and Hudds continued to have wealthy owners who - for the sake of argument - could and chose to fund their clubs and buy success (on and off the field) such that they could spend twice what Leeds could on players; and

IF Leeds were still able to spend around the current salary cap, or maybe a bit more, but nowhere near what those guys could; and

IF, as a result, Leeds lost their seat at the top table, and crowds and income generally fell away like they did in the lean years before Leeds enjoyed success again, because Leeds were always getting well beaten by the big clubs despite the best efforts of the (second-best) players;

THEN would you still be such a big advocate of no cap?

And we'll have to trust you to answer honestly, cos its easy to sign up for something when you don't ever expect to have to deliver. We know all about that over our way. And only you and your conscience will know if you are being truthful, since we on here will obviously have to take you at your word.

Is it an unequivocal yes?

Ifs, buts, maybes.......

This whole thread has been mainly perpetrated by a bitter pie who blames the"communist cap" for his team being no good anymore and a Leeds fan who can't remember how s**t his team was just over 10 years ago, and seems to have benefitted from, surprise surprise, the salary cap!

The salary cap is here, it is now, and it's going nowhere. Deal with it.

The salary cap doesn't stop Leeds paying Lee Smith (or any other player) huge money.

Leeds insistence on employing a strict wage structure that rewards players on a pre-set gradient is what prevents them paying one individual player a huge salary.

Its' this policy that has ensured the "team" has remained successful whilst one or two talented individuals have moved on.

That a Leeds fan like smokey would be berating such a wise policy is stupidity beyond belief. Presumably smokey would like to see a return to the Leeds RL policy of the 1980's with the massive chequebook. That was a successful era wasn't it?

The fact is our sport cannot pay football wages and it cannot pay Rugby Union wages. That is not the fault of the salary cap. The cap does, however, help to ensure clubs within our sport do not go to the wall.