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.

There is something in that. I recall Caisley railing against the cap - or at least at the level it was set at, and I think for that reason. Trouble was, then various clubs acquired a rich owner and Bulls lost the benefits of the advantages they had built for themselves as other clubs were able to buy success. Not least by recruiting former Bulls off-field staff who the Bulls could no longer afford to retain.

If Caisley had been a multi-millionaire prepared to pump loads into the club, and if we had had a half-decent council like various other clubs, and not the pile of totally useless pond life that we in this failing city have been blessed with for too many years, you would likely still be bemoaning yet another Bulls vs Saints/Leeds/Wigan (and now probably Wire) final.

If the cap was not there then clubs with rich backers would scoop up all the talent to prevent their competitors from having them ala Wigan in the late 80's, they went on to dominate the game for years as no one could compete with them. This almost killed of RL and Wigan at the same time, they had to win trophies every season to keep up the spending, the salary cap is there to prevent one or more clubs breaking away with an excess of talent based purely on available funds rather than developed talent. If a club has cash at its disposal over and above the cap then it should be invested in the facilities and youth system to entice the best players and youngsters to the club, this is of more benifit to RL than paying over the odds for one or two marquee signings. Better facilities and local lads will always put bums on seats and is easier to spread around the competition as they are investments in the clubs rather than payments to individuals, the cap was designed to do this and prevent clubs from putting all their cash into an unsustainable wage bill for players. What will be interesting is when the batch of pre 2008 quota exemptions/dispensations fall out of the system, this combined with the SC should see a better levelling out of the competion in percentage of overseas players to British players. This is why clubs should be investing monies into the youth systems to fill these vacant squad places down the track, clubs that continue to buy in talent will suffer due to this short term gain attitude.

Adey, you have rallied against Bradford Council a couple of times in this thread. They can't be all that bad, as didn't they give the Bulls £3/4 million lump sum for handing over the maintenance of the ground? They can't be all bad.