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.

except it doesnt really does it,

and it is artificial because the salary cap as tool, has only one use take from the top and give to the bottom, there is no competition there, clubs arent earning this edge




why is being successful and well run allowing you to be able to spend more a shortcut?

no it doesnt, it doesnt allow any club to succeed, its aim is to make success transient, there are numerous rules which we could put in place which would stop clubs buying all the talent, there are many rules which would actually encourage clubs to invest in what we want them to invest in and clubs which grow their off the field operations should be rewarded for that, and sometimes a well run club may need to invest on the field to grow those things of it

Shall we snip Federer's strings or remove Tiger's putter while we are it?

Don't let clubs get in silly debt like football. If the salary cap helps this great. It should not however be used to give weaker clubs a foot up.

See my earlier post.

Yes sir. I agree

One of many other uses is that it stops the top from taking from the bottom. In a league where one or two clubs have far more spending power than the rest there is no incentive for other clubs to develop players as the best will leave for the money.



It's not. The other ways of being able to spend more are and they are not sustainable in the long term.



Success is transient, that's the nature of sport. The salary cap encourages investment in long term improvements rather than short term spending on players. This way the whole league can improve and move forward rather than stagnate.

I agree with that, another argument to keep the % of turnover rule. Only reatining this element of the salary will stop clubs stagnating as they will always be looking for ways t improve turnover. Having a ceiling amount which is lower than the percentage of turnover will lead to stagnation of the clubs, as they will know the maximum amount of turnover it is worth making.

really, like Gareth Ellis?

it doesnt stop players leaving the bottom clubs for top, it never has done and never will do, players want to win things, only a few clubs win things, and the SC hasnt changed this nor will it



why do you think you know what is sustainable for a club to spend?

Also, if this is your reasoning, then we shouldnt have a hard cap, but one based on turnover, surely it is sustainable for Leeds to spend more than wakefield because leeds turnover a vast amount more,





maybe you could provide us with some examples? what are these long term investments that the SC has allowed the smaller clubs to make?

New stadia.... Oh, hold the presses...

As not all clubs in SL can afford to spend up to the cap the SL salary cap is, currently, less effective than it could be.



Time to make your make your mind up. Either the salary cap makes success transitive and the league artificially competitive or only a few clubs win things.

Wakefield offered Ellis more than Leeds did, the salary cap had no effect whatsoever on his decision,




the salary cap aims to make it transient, but when some clubs are sooooo far behind it just gets rotated between a few

i see you have conveniently ignored giving any examples of the SC encouraging investment in long term rather than the short term

Exactly. As not all clubs in SL can afford to spend up to the cap the SL salary cap is, currently, less effective than it could be. As your example shows.



When some clubs are sooooo far behind things should be done to change that. Like having a salary cap.

Quoting the obvious to the stupid

Like develop their businesses?