There is an agreed wage rate in construction for trades people. It isn't a cap as such, but it regulates earnings.

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.

, 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

Do you know, you might just have hit on it there!

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

no, most a run by successful businessmen, businessmen that have already learned that throwing money at a problem doesnt work,

some dont spend the cap now, how have they managed to stop themselves throwing money away? how do they possess the control not to spend more than they could afford even though the RFL allow them to?

and why are the other clubs different?

you seem to act as if clubs would immediately run themselves into the ground if there wasnt an arbitrary limit on wages, one that has no relation to their financial status, somehow stopping them?



we produce them, its what we should have been doing for a long time, and if we cant produce them, we go out and find them

and your argument applies in exactly the same way to a salary capped world, why bother producing youngsters, they will only leave when they get good because you cant afford to keep them under an arbitrary cap



all clubs can afford to spend as much as they can afford on wages, which is what they should be spending on wages, what they can afford.

this is a much more sensible approach than someone deciding on a number 10 years ago and pretending its financially sound for all clubs to be spending this amount even though it bares no relation to their financial status,

Yes, i care much more about the game than my club

and again, its not that i want no cap, or no rules regarding squad make up, simply that there are much much much better ways of working it than picking one number and pretending all clubs are financially sound if they are spending it, and this magical amount will somehow mean we now have the necessary pathways to be producing the players we need to

i have not berated any policy, its disingenuous at best for you to say i have, or even come close to saying so,

im more than comfortable in trusting hetherington and caddick to implement and work such a policy in a non-SC world as much as an SC world,

and again, the cap doesnt ensure clubs dont go to the wall, plenty of clubs have done in the last ten years, it also has no link to a clubs financial status

so then if Clubs were run responsibly an SC clearly isnt needed is it?



ahh, so your impression of Simon Moran is a good enough reason for a salary cap then?

that is correct, but pay say Brian O'driscoll more than he is paid in RU, and he plays League, and all of a sudden GB have another good player in the squad

they are there, believe me,

we have also lost Smith, Walker, Myler, Farrell, all players who were british SL players, all replaced by overseas players




it isnt, the gap isnt huge when it comes to wages, we can and do compete, certainly not between the GP and SL


so on the basis that the leeds players who get paid more have won less, picking an arbitrary amount 10 years ago and allowing clubs to only spend that on wages whether the can afford it or not is a good idea?

So, Smokey, in short, you want rid of the SC because you know that your club's future will be secure thanks to your multi-millionaire backer?

You could have just written that and saved all that wristwork for other pursuits.

last time there wasnt a SC leeds almost went broke trying to pay the same wages as wigan

the price of course was the club was sold to an owner whose main interest was union and now union pollutes the hallowed headingly turf

If Rugby League clubs were willing to pay every player a wage that Rugby Union offers them then most teams would be bankrupt anyway.

And all of the players could get "the wage that they deserve" if they went to other teams, no doubt.

.............and Wigan almost followed suit.

no, i trust my club, along with almost all others in SL, would be secure because they are run well,

i am sure that should we allow clubs to spend what they can afford, or we point them in the direction of doing what we need to do to be a successful sport, that they are very able to do so,

i think a flat cap----with very minor exceptions----doesnt go anyway to acheiving that

union also pumps millions in to the parent company,

dont you worry, Leeds Carnegie more than pay their way

Changed your tune there sunshine



Are Chelsea or Man city well run ?

Just on a small point though dally, your cap over there is higher (by quite a lot) and includes scope for marquee players, our's doesn't.

You've also not got the same competition sport wise in that your sports are more regionally orientated (e.g. RL in Queensland and NSW) and no serious mega bucks competitor like football (or soccer as you'll no doubt refer to it). I'd be surprised if Australia would still be producing a seeming production line of Inglis, Hayne, Folau etc if football was a big sport in Aus

IF Caddick and / or Hetherington wanted out, there would be no shortage of people wanting to buy the club, in whatever state it was in ....