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.

Most people, including myself, agree there should be a cap to stop irresponsible owners running clubs into the wall.

But, not one single person has produced a persuasive argument as to why the cap should be the same for every club.

The cap as it is has failed to produce a level competition, and I'm not even sure such a thing is desirable. Other sports prove that having known 'good teams' is a benefit.

Nobody moans that Tennis is dominated by two men.
Nobody moans when Tiger dominated Golf.
Nobody moaned when Schumacher dominated F1.
Nobody moaned at Lance Armstrong's domination of Le Tour.
Nobody moans that Brazil have managed to win five world cups.
Nobody moans when Barca and Real spend millions to produce world class teams.

The fact is that sporting excellence is viewed as a positive in other sports. Many RL fans, mainly it seems scarred by the once dominant Wigan, want a competition of mediocre teams, all able to beat one another.

I'd prefer one or two teams that are genuinely special, but would like to see the teams change every now and then as teams get older and begin to break up. Ala St Helens.

Considering this, I see no reason to limit what Leeds can pay Sinfield, Peacock, and Smith just so Cas don't go mental and go bust.

None of the highlighted could be affected by money [ apart from Schumachers dominance and he won in slower cars , and the sport was suffering once he got the quickest car ] , and as for Real and Barca they both have had financial problems in the past

Sporting excellence should be applauded , the SC is not perfect , but at the moment it is neccessary within our sport

It is fun to trip him up

Indeed it is.

But I could never see much risk of Leeds reverting to the old madhouse while Caddick and Hetherington are at the helm, could you?

No, for me the real risk comes from the e.g. Morans of this world, who I get the impression would happily be prepared to spend much more to buy success. And in doing so, force everyone else to either keep up or drop out. Bit like an arms race really. And indeed, bit like the very start of SL, when too many clubs started offering stupid salaries and transfer fees to try and do just that. So too much of the Sky money that was supposed to fund clubs restructuring on a sound platform went to players and agents.

Of course, he's got enough Yachts and Caribbean Islands as Smokey put it already so nothing else to spend on other than getting Wire to win everything

why is it always fans of clubs that have the most money always ague against a salary cap?

Strange that despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, people keep equating the salary cap to the quality of British players. Pay Ryan Hall 10 times as much as he's on now, and he'd still be Ryan Hall and not Greg Inglis.

I have yet to hear any evidence of the huge exodus of outrageously talented 16-year olds to Union caused by the salary cap. Because if they're not going then, they simply don't exist. As it is we've lost only one truly hand on heart world-class British player to Union - Jason Robinson.

The biggest change to our sport in terms of source of player is the drying up of the Yawnion well - look back to say 95 and you'll see Union backs across all teams - generally the best British players in the threequarters. Skip forward ten years and they've all gone, with the gap to be made up by journeymen Aussies/Kiwis and homegrown players.

Unless a club has an outrageously wealthy backer willing to pay - in SL terms - astronomical wages - the chances are Union recruits would still be few and far between as the basic gap in wages is very large (not to mention prestige etc that comes from Union).

As for Leeds, I suspect that the players who have left for money - Calderwood, Walker and Scruton spring to mind - would almost all rather have stayed at Headingley. Just how much more would a prop like Scruton get at another club? Even if the gap is big - possible for both Calderwood and Walker - I suspect they'd both rather have stayed at Leeds than left.

The salary cap is here to stay, and rightly so.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html an article on how the storm approach working with the salary cap and still staying strong clubs have to use their money smarter. its not impossible to beat the impact of the cap, but the more success you have, the harder it becomes as players ask for more money and you have to keep developing new players

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html an article on how the storm approach working with the salary cap and still staying strong clubs have to use their money smarter. its not impossible to beat the impact of the cap, but the more success you have, the harder it becomes as players ask for more money and you have to keep developing new players