whats the bet this guy is either a fan of leeds or wigan, with an outside chance of st helens.

its always fans of rich clubs that are in favour of no salary cap.

selfishness vs good of the game

And it's always fans of rubbish clubs who want to bring the standard down to their level, without having to actually work and invest to improve.

Mediocrity rules man, mediocrity rules.

why since 1990? thats pretty arbitrary and the answer is 4,

thats lovely! is having lots of teams win a sign of how good a comp is?



no, it obviously isnt because it doesnt work



for f'cks sake what do you think i have been saying?

the salary cap doesnt help clubs build strong sides, it simply destroys them and stops the game evolving,



or you could argue that the competition has stagnated to such an extent there isnt a great deal of difference between the top and bottom

I know the RFL aren't exactly rolling in money but IMO there should be rewards giving to clubs who produce an England international. Say 20k every season a player from their youth system makes the grade and if a player who's had international honours within the last 2 seasons and is then out of contract, the club who signs him have to pay a set amount in compensation, this amount would be the same for any international.

The only way around this would be if the team who currently hold the players contract cannot keep him due to SC restrictions he can then move on for free with no compensation. This way the competition will even up with the SC doing its regular job and strengthening the overall competition but still a large incentive to nurture your own academy prospects.

You think we have rows over selection policy now? Imagine adding the accusation "It's just a way for the RFL to subsidise their favourite clubs" …

Was it not the the year the Premier League was formed as a separate competition from the Football League? Is it any more arbitrary than asking "how many teams have won SL since 1996"?

Not sure anyone wants to create an artificially competitive league. However the salary cap aims to create a competitive league. I guess many Rugby League fans want a more competitive league because it is better for the sport, competitive games are more interesting to watch.



The better run clubs do win things. The less well run clubs do not.

the PL was formed in 1992

which means my answer was wrong and 5 clubs have actually won it since 1990

though i dont really think you can say Leeds won the PL in 1991 because it didnt exist, they won the top division which was division 1

I stand corrected.

the SC however makes it artificially competitive,




we shouldnt have less well run clubs, we should have a league full of clubs which are run very well, each striving to be better run in an endless search for improvement and a competitive edge

if we did this then the SC would be needless, but in an effort to cover for failure we brought in a counter-productive SC

It is certainly true that the salary cap makes the league more competitive. However I don't see how that can be described as artificial - it really is more competitive. Just like the rule about each team having the same number of players on the pitch makes the league more competitive.



In order for one club to be better run others must be less well run. But yes the bar should be constantly moving forward. Which, of course, the salary cap encourages by stopping clubs from attempting to short cut to success by spend more than other clubs (and often they) can afford.



The salary cap allows the well run clubs to succeed as opposed to those who have the largest financial backing. Seems good to me.

I beleive that the only salary cap that should be in place is the % of turnover element, thus stopping reckless directors putting clubs in peril whilst also rewarding enterprise as clubs will be further incentivised to increase turnover.