Some counts, some doesnt (hence the tax issues we are having now). When the RFL changed it, it was portrayed by them, that the change kept the SC the same in real terms. My memory maybe incorrect and it may have just been NI which was removed from the cap.

Regardless, this would ignore the massive effect inflation would have had on the value of that £1.65m over more than a decade.

Mostly bollox.

Bradford's demise is directly attributable to not having a sugar daddy, or a wealthy owner when it mattered, and therefore not being able to compete financially with those clubs who do. Its as simple as that. Bradford used the Sky money far more astutely in the early days of SL, investing in the people and activities that built the platform for the early years success. In particular, they did NOT get into the nonsense of paying stupid salaries to players like certain other clubs did. But the club did NOT make ongoing profits. Without the Odsal settlement, the club would have hit financial retrenchment several years earlier.

It had fekk all to do with the salary cap "making it more even" and everything to do with other clubs using wealthy owners' money (along with helpful councils, unlike our bunch of useless useless donkeys) to pay for what Bradford had to fund from within the club. Other clubs have been able to seriously outspend Bradford OFF the park. Where the cap is irrelevant. Their good fortune, our misfortune. Life's a bitch, and its currently our turn to be on the wrong end of it.

My personal opinion (as those who have seem my posts on the subject before will know) is that the salary cap has the potential (I'll leave it at that) to be optional where you have a wealthy owner. There are too many ways to circumvent it if you are so-minded, and have the financial resources.

It is no different to Soccer and other sports (other than maybe in scale) - the future belongs to the clubs with the money, and its the wealthy owners who have made and will make the difference.

Now then, a year or two ago Boots n all had a discussion about the salary cap. Phil Clarke had an interesting idea (his first?). I think he maybe got it from an American sport?

If a club wanted to go say £200k over the cap - they could only do it on a 1:5 ratio. They would have to put in £1m - they would keep £200k and the other £800k would be shared amongst the other 13 clubs. An expensive option for the club wishing to do it but the other clubs get benefit as well. And those clubs not quite at salary cap level would have an extra £60k to pay a player.

And we'll never know.

But is allowing clubs to buy titles they weren't good enough to achieve with a level playing field really progress for the sport?

Wasnt it Bradford who spent most of there salary cap on Matt Orford and then realised that they cant put a decent team on the park. One man does not make a team and you cannot put all your eggs in one basket

I remember speaking to quite a few Bradford Supporters who believed they where going to win the league that year because of one man

We either want a average league or a Super League

My choice would be a Super League with Superstars earning good money

and its inevitable that the 'bigger' clubs would find themselves with the superstars, but a lot of people in the game can't stand that thought, and would genuinely prefer a mediocre sport with 'level-playing field'. Unfortunately, the RFL seems to think the same.

If a person GENUINELY values 'level-playing field' over commercial success, I actually respect their view, because although its not what I want for the game, at least its a coherent argument. What I don't respect is the fools who think that they can have it both ways, and think that the secret of success is to hold back the best clubs, whilst the rest somehow 'catch up' commercially. Ain't EVER going to happen.

Bringing over Union players would actually help, because the top clubs wouldn't want most of them, so we could use them to put bums on seats at the smaller clubs.

I think most people want a Super League, but more than a 3 or 4 team Super League which is all it would be with no salary cap.

The reality with Bradford is that their philosophy under Caisley to attract crowds with the most marketable players in the game playing in a quality team just wasn't compatible in a salary cap system. When the likes of Henry / Robbie Paul, Vainikolo, Lowes, Fielden etc move on and the players aren't there to replace them, then the performances drop and the crowds drop. That isn't the salary cap harming Bradford, that's Bradford not having a system that is 'compatible' with a salary cap system.

Thats one way of looking at it

but why is it that anyone who questions either the level of the technical detail of the cap is assumed to be in favour of having no cap??!

Virtually nobody ever says "have no cap at all".

Even the simplest possible 'cap', (pretty much the one we have now) still needs the level setting correctly. And of course, there are more sophisticated structures that would keep some benefits and fix some problems.

You're arguing against a point that your opponents aren't even making! ... by assuming we want to scrap all form of salary control.

You don't half talk some total bollox.

"Most of the salary cap"? - you are having a laugh. If anyone thinks we were paying Orford more than some other clubs (or the unconnected third parties who bought the image rights) were paying THEIR marquee overseas players, they too are having a laugh.

I never met one Bull who thought we would win the league because of Orford. I met quite a few that though we might be dark horses for around 4th-6th (and I held that view) but that is as far as it went. One or two internet personas posted silly comments on internet forums, but that was all I ever saw.

How about you come back when you have something sensible, eh?

ps. just before Orford was injured, we were 4th in the table.