I would add to that, if Wigan for example wanted to pay Sam Tomkins £1million a year, why should they be prevented from doing so, it would simply mean they would have less money available to offer to other players who whilst they may not be of sam quality, they may not be a million miles away.

Also if a club creates a talent, why should that club not benefit from the trickle down effect, if that player was hot property they could sell to a rich club and benefit as the rich club could fit them in their wages structure straight away. The cap means that rich clubs don't pay transfers as often because to ship a player in they need to boot a player out as the cap does not allow them to hold both at once.

I'm sure they will. But if the NRL currently wants a British player, and the player wants to play in the NRL (which anyone who has lived abroad and understands the upheaval will know is no certainty by any means) there's little we can do to stop him even before their income expansion.



I've yet to see any evidence that YOU understand it.



I know. You used them to bluff out an argument from authority. Which doesn't make it any less so.



That's two arguments from authority. Congratulations.



You really are straining to prove that lowering wages in a time when the majority of people in Britain are taking a pay cut each year in real terms will render the game devoid of skill, entertainment, sponsors and people willing to watch. Perhaps you should consider a career in palm reading?

I was thinking more along the lines of maintaining the current meritocratic model (better players receive higher wages) - but at a lower overall ceiling which is a fixed minimum and maximum for all clubs and an absolute requirement for entry into the competition.



You said that. I said it would indeed cause problems and would probably have to be implemented in a stepwise, phase-down fashion to mitigate upheaval as much as possible.



You said that. I said we will likely lose players which would certainly be worrying. However, I (and I'm sure the players) prefer this to clubs going out of existence because they are busting their finances attempting to keep up with the top teams who can outspend them for the best talent.



Of course not. Which is why I wouldn't take such action without making every effort to keep as much talent as possible.



There's a mathematical saying that infinite growth is impossible and there's a Marxist saying which argues it leads to disaster.



I really don't see these arguments as mutually exclusive.

Mugwump - Why have you started a thread to just then answer the questions you posed yourself?

The sport was founded due to money, it has always been at the core of the sport. I doubt there has ever been a successful club that did not spend money to get success. At the same time it is easy to sound money and not have success.

Looking at world sport and the salary cap, money probably has the least impact on the sport that it has had for a while (ignoring the club that run out of it).

That’s nonsense and you know it, You don’t need it explaining to you that the economics of the move will be part of the equation for the player.
In the context of what has gone before, this doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

No I didnt.


Its not an argument, its self evident fact.

Nope, its obvious to most people. People arent taking wage cuts as gesture of solidarity with the economy, they take them because they dont have another option. Our players do. Its is self-evident that a lower quality game, will get lower attendances and visibility, and that lower attendances and visibility will result in lower sponsorship and TV rights. We see this in action, its called the championship.

I'm still not convinced some clubs aren't paying more than the salary cap. We aren't seeing top talent move around clubs like we see in the NRL and we aren't seeing clubs sharing success like we see in the NRL. Given ? 8 of the SL are spending full salary caps you would expect to see more of the two above indicators happening.

Well over the last 5 seasons we've seen 4 different teams top the table, 2 teams win the Grand Final, and 3 different teams win the Challenge Cup. I don't think that's too bad personally and isn't particularly any worse than the NRL.

I would question whether 8 of the 14 teams are spending the full cap, and I would certainly question how much many of the SL clubs are spending on things like conditioning, physios, sports science etc

No. It's written in plain English and makes perfect sense. If you can't process information I can't be held responsible.



I'm afraid you did.



You have no conclusive evidence to support this claim. It is not self-evident. It is not a fact. Claiming that it is doesn't make it so.



Another argument from authority.



What - ALL our players? Every last one? They will ALL desert the game? Or do you mean only the good ones? Either way this is not a copper-bottomed fact either. There is no evidence. Believe it or not - some players play for the love of the game. They are more than happy with the money but it's not the primary motivating factor. I'm quite sure there are many SL players who wouldn't appreciate the mercenary attributes you assign to them.



Whilst I'm sure there would be difficulties with losing [isome[/i players in the short term it is NOT self-evident that skill levels would drop off a cliff. We would still have a fully-professional game. We would still have young players wanting to play the game to a high level. Believe it or not - people WANT to play rugby league. People WANT to watch rugby league.

I haven't answered any of these questions.

Really?

I mean, sure - at the start of the season it's pretty much impossible to know who will win SL (out of three or four sides who have gobbled up most of the talent). But I can list with certainty those sides who (sans some freak Munich-esque catastrophe hitting Leeds, Saints, Wigan & Warrington or the intervention of some rich sugar daddy) won't win it - season after season after season.

Can you say the same - consistently - about the NRL?

Wouldn't it be better if ALL clubs began the competition spending precisely the same amount of money? Wouldn't the bottom 6 or 8 attract more fans if they genuinely felt they had as good a chance as anyone else? How about sponsors?

I really don't understand it. RL fans are forever moaning that SL is not competitive. Yet when we suggest a very rough proposal to make it so they fall over themselves to argue it absolutely positively won't work. Or is it that they just want some clubs to be more equal than others?

Yes, really. As I said SL has 4 different teams top the table, 2 teams win the GF and 3 teams win the Cup over the last 5 seasons. The NRL has had 4 teams top the table and 3 teams win the GF over the same time period. Hardly an earth-shattering difference.
You're right, of course, in that the league would be more competitive if every club could spend the full cap, but that's just a statement of the bleedin' obvious.
The solution to that problem is not to immediately lower the cap to the level of the worst off club, it's to bring the bottom clubs up to the level of the top clubs.
I also don't totally agree with this argument that it's "always the same clubs" at the top. You mentioned Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Warrington. Only 2 of those clubs have been consistently at the top and winning things since the start of SL, and one of those had a break for a few years. Also, possibly the most dominant club in the history of SL is missing from that list. It wouldn't be a surprise if any of those 4 you mentioned win the big prize next season, nor is it unreasonable to suggest clubs like Catalans or Hull could win it. That's over 40% of clubs. I don't think that's particularly bad.
The solution is not to reduce wages down to a very low level and lose many more players to other sports or careers, nor is it to significantly raise the cap or do away with it as that would simply lead to a wider gulf. The solution, in my opinion, is to keep the cap where it is and to "professionalise" the lower clubs to get them up to a higher level off the field so that they can sustainably spend more on the field.

I understand it, but it is nonsense

So you are saying, that if Sam Tompkins stops playing Rugby League, he is still, in some form, effective as a Rugby League player? interesting.............

I cant help it if what is obvious to most people is difficult for you to understand.
Thats a lovely straw man you are building there. This would be a very very bad thing. Where is your evidence for this? Where is your evidence that players would be willing to accept lower wages to even the competition?

As i said, we see it in action. Fortunately we have a league which posses the attributes you crave. We have a league where the cap has been lowered to a level all can spend, and it is competitive and unpredictable, but its best players leave for pastures new, for more money, and that league struggles to attract fans, sponsors and a tv deal.

How about the full time-frame comparsion (1998-2012) as opposed to your selective 5 year one?

Super League
4 teams winning the GF
6 teams appearing in the GF
5 teams finishing top of the ladder

NRL
9 teams winning the GF
12 teams appearing in the GF
9 teams finishing top of the ladder

And the comparison suddenly becomes earth-shatteringly different