So in other words, we don't know and we are assuming that the money is there when it might not be. I am not prepared to forego all the recent positive progression the game has made on the back of a whim, hunch or gamble.



That's all well and good but my point still stands about "you need to have an alternative that survives close scrutiny first or else you change to something that might not work which would be suicidal" especially because you also haven't made a successful argument against it.

You've said it hasn't stopped teams from going bust and then referenced a "myriad" of clubs which have gone bust without considering the likelihood of whether they would have gone bust without a salary cap and whether other teams would have gone bust if there had been no salary cap.

You mention the evening out of the competition without making reference to the increased closeness of results/league positions and public perception about this. You simply make reference to who has won and then suggest that that is the only measure of competition within Super League when it clearly is not. My own eyes tell me that the competition is getting more competitive e.g. Huddersfield (who hadn't challenged for anything in my lifetime before the cap), Catalans, Warrington winning two Challenge cups. I await next season with even more interest thanks to the arrival of Millward at Cas and the two new coaches at both Hull clubs. You may suggest some of these have made the leap to the big time via massive investment, however I believe it's more down to the appointment of good coaches i.e. Smith, Brown, Robinson.

I'm not saying there aren't have valid points about wanting to develop the game, however whatever points that are being made need to consider the context of what the game has, wants and can afford to be. Singularly throwing out points without sufficient evidence for them or ignoring the positive points of the cap to make a point is not the way to progress the debate.

It doesnt matter if the money is there or not. There is nobody forcing anybody to spend it. If clubs have the money, then there should be a mechanism for them to spend it. If they dont have the money then it doesnt matter that that mechanism is there because they wont spend it anyway.

Thats just poor thinking. We dont have to justify not having an SC, it is the SC that needs justifying. If the SC cant justify itself we dont have it.

But you are just guessing that that is the case. And again your thinking is poor. It isnt up to me to prove that other clubs wouldnt have gone bust without the SC, it is up to you to prove they would have. Though I think it is clear you would struggle

And as i addressed, Huddersfield and Warrington didnt improve their competitiveness on the back of the SC, both improved on the back of massive investment from rich owners who would likely be among the first to spend more than the current SC. How do you think Warrington could afford Smith and Hudds Brown if not for their rich owners? It clearly has nothing to do with the SC. It seems strange that you are arguing in favour of the SC but saying that the improvement at Les Catalans, Warrington, and Hudds was down to the appointments of Smith, Brown and Robinson?
Your point about closer games and the results/leagues doesnt stand up. In 1990 Wigans league topping points difference was +350, in 1991 +339, in 1992 +338, in 1993 +417, in 1994 +377 and in 1995 +762, 1996 +494, 1997 + 397. In 2011 however Warringtons was +672, in 2010 +511, in 2009 +352, in 2008 +483, 2007 +361, 2006 +509, 2005 +491, in 2004 + 594. The teams at the top had bigger points differences (i.e the difference between what they conceded and scored, a pretty good indicator of 'closeness') post SC than they did pre SC. The teams scored more relative to what they conceded after we 'levelled the playing field'. That certainly isnt evidence of the SC narrowing the gap. If you have any evidence of the SC working how it is supposed to, I have yet to see them. Simply guesses that teams seem to be closer, and other clubs could have gone bust without it, which is the worst kind of evidence available

Smokey, how many years do you think we had all this money before we won anything, it didn't happen overnight.

Money isn't a sign that you'll win anything, if all SL clubs had a billionaire backer someone would still finish 14th.

Coaching>Money
any day of the week, in fact the majority of the Late Cullen early Lowes team did nothing then won 2 CC's on the bounce and a LLS with Smith.

Of course it does. The Scottish rugby union is £16m in debt. Is that a situation you would wish to see rugby league in because we try to compete when there's no 'gold standard' to back us up. We cannot spend what we don't have as a sport.



I understand that and partly agree but the ability to spend additional money should not be allowed at the expense of the security, balance, integrity and competitiveness of the sport.



Just because you don't think it needs justifying doesn't mean it does. There's been several threads on these boards justifying the salary cap and pretty much all of them have been successful. By all means go back and read them because I don't see any point in regurgitating them when the argument for something better hasn't been made yet.



Okay because we can't prove it means the argument about clubs going bust cannot be determined. Therefore the only thing you can say is that this part of the argument around the salary cap should not be included. I would suggest through logic and financial awareness than allowing clubs to spend beyond an agreed and regulated figure opens up greater possibilities for clubs to go bust. I would refer to sports like football as examples of where that is the case (and if they haven't gone bust they're millions in debt, which RL could not survive with).



What I would suggest is that it's a combination of everything, however I do think the salary cap has played its part.



Again that is just one way of measuring competitiveness. What about looking at medians and averages between all teams over a time period rather than just picking the top team? By just assessing against the top team you are effectively suggesting that it is representative and accurately reflects the experience of all fourteen teams in the league. How is that a good measure? Even then it is a still only a statistical measure and at times may not reflect what reality is e.g. I've just watched two games; One finished 24-20 and the other 30-20; The first game was 24-0 at half-time and remained so until the final ten minutes when four quick tries were scored; Second game had several changes of lead and was 20-20 until two tries in the final four minutes. The stats suggest one game was more competitive than the other when it wasn't.

What's wrong with using your own eyes to assess what's going in front of them? I see a game that's getting more competitive as I think a lot of people do. Throwing up stats may support or undermine that argument, however they should never be taken in isolation away from what we actually see ourselves.

One challenge cup in 35 years and one league leaders shield for being minor premiers isn't really that good a return is it?

Going back to the idea of for every £ over, you put a £ in the pot.

At the beginning of the season all teams that can already spend up to and capable of going over the cap should declare it and outline how they are able to afford it to the auditors.

Those teams are then given the OK to spend what they want as long as they put the same amount in to the RL pot.

The teams that are not able to spend over the cap also declare this and then the pot is divided between those clubs.

If a team like Wire and Wigan want to load their squads with top class talent in every position they do it at double the expense and the more they spend over it, the more the 'lesser' clubs get.

The millionaires like Moran and Davy are effectively investing in their own clubs and the potential success but are also investing in everybody elses in Superleague which prevents teams running away with the league.

Not sure who are capable of spending up to and beyond i'd guess Wigan, Wire, Leeds, Hudds, Hull FC, Saints, Broncos and Widnes.

Half the league are then able to bring in big names from Oz/NZ and the other half are bulked up with extra money.

That's kind of my point, we've had the money but it didn't bring us all the success that people say money brings.

If it wouldn't make a difference, why get rid of it? You're basically suggesting that clubs should spend more on players they'd already be getting on a smaller contract. They could spend that money elsewhere.

This is the best compromise, but I think 5 may be too high. Our domestic soccer league has a system which allows for 2 players to count for a modest hit against the cap, but they can be paid whatever amount in reality. It helps the teams who can afford big players and yet the clubs who choose not to go that route often remain competitive. It's a good balance, I think.

I havent said it did happen overnight, and money itself wouldnt have put Warrington in the position they are in, it has taken no little skill to get them there, all I am saying is that the Salary Cap isnt the reason for Wire's improvement.

well done on

a ) missing the point and
b ) getting your facts wrong.

Why would we become the SRU? where is your evidence or logic to show we would? and I havent advocated us spending money we dont have, i have said plenty of times that if we dont have it we dont spend it. What you are advocating is not spending money we do have.
The salary cap doesnt do these things. We can see from the past ten years of the SC it doesnt do these things, The league isnt more competitive, it isnt more secure, it isnt more balanced and the huge amounts of breaks of the SC we have had, have if anything, only served to undermine the integrity of the sport. If the SC did these things I would be in favour of it, but the evidence shows it doesnt.

Thats just ridiculous logic. If the SC works, the SC works, if it doesnt, it doesnt. The alternatives are irrelevant. Having and keeping a salary cap isnt the default position. Just like making all the players wear scrum caps isnt the default position. It would need to be justified.

It can be determined. It can be determined very very easily. If the SC protects clubs from going bust we should see either none, or a very very low amount of clubs going bust in the SC era compared to the pre SC era. But we dont. Therefore the SC doesnt protect clubs from going bust. It is a very very very very poor argument to rely on the fact that we could imagine other clubs, could maybe in a different universe, have gone bust, but maybe didnt because of the salary cap, but in reality we are just guessing and making it up.

Why would you think that? what is your logic for thinking so? How is it evidenced or are you just making a wildly speculative claim? Would you not agree that considering the amount of money put in to Wire and Hudds by Davey and Moran that Wire and Hudds would be among the clubs most likely to spend more than the SC, so the SC has actually hampered their ability to win things rather than promoted it?

No, it does as i stated, reflect the difference between the amount of points the top team conceded and how many they scored, which is a good measure of the competitiveness of the games involving them. Thats why we didnt take one example, but nearly 500 hundred. A large sample size would mitigate the effects of situations like this. Especially considering that both types of game would be equally reflected in both groups. Unless of course you are arguing that even though the difference in points scored is larger the SC era games were in fact closer and there has been a big upsurge in games where a team runs away with it in the last few minutes in the past ten years, and a similarly large drop in games where teams post big early scores?

Because what we see is subjective, it is affected by our own personal bias. If your argument was strong you would be able to evidence it.

The primary reason for the SC was to stop clubs going broke.
In that it has failed.
If we want clubs to remain financially solvent then the SL need to introduce a rule whereby each club has to break even over a three year period. If they do not then League Points will be deducted. Maybe for the next three seasons.

As for stopping clubs buying all the best players, introduce a points sytem.
100 points for the game 17. A club trained Intl like Roby, no more than four points, a bought in Intl like Shenton 16 points. You couldn't buy in a team full of Intls with just 100 points a game 17. Just a thought!
When the NRL found Melbourne had trashed their beloved salary cap Gallop admitted the SC had failed and suggested a points system. I'd hate them to bring one in and we be left with a useless SC.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree bud. You see the salary cap as hindering competitiveness whereas I see it as contributing to it. Neither of us are able to offer an empirical evidence because we both perceive things differently. We both want the game to grow and progress so I'm happy with that even if we disagree on each other's assertions.