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.

Maybe part of the reason that the SL isn't as even as the NRL comes down to salary cap level v income. In NRL the salary cap is around 30% of clubs income. In SL it is probably over 50% for most clubs. Either SL clubs need to get their incomes up or the salary cap needs to come down to be more affordable to all clubs without them having no money left for jnr development, coaching etc.

Yes, but "cap not there" isn't what most people who have a problem with the cap are arguing for.

It's extremely simple to stop a club scooping up all the top talent, you just have a variant of what used to be the 20/20 rule...I don't know, even 13/20, whatever, someone else can work out the detail. But the *current structure* of the cap is ensuring that the sport gets left behind commercially.

I think the guy generally talks rubbish, but for once I agree with Garry Schofield about standards being very low and getting lower.

We tend to notice established players being poached by Union, but frankly, that's just a minor symptom of what's really going on, but much harder to measure...the fact that talented kids are much more attracted to Union, so we don't even know what we're missing.

We *MUST* allow the game to have superstars. Without superstars, we're not commercially interesting and therefore the game declines. In today's world, superstars means paying money. Clubs a) should be prevented from spending more than they can afford, and b) prevented from 'scooping' up talent and leaving it sat on a bench thus cheating fans out of watching the top talent.

Anything else is fantasy land. You *cannot* deliberately hold back the market leaders to 'equalize' competition, without hurting the sport. Idiots will keep trying and League will continue its relative decline.

With Wood in charge there is no hope. An accountant, not a visionary. We desperately need some vision, not a guy constantly defending the indefensible.

Unfortunately, its probably even worse than that. The fan base itself has far too many people ( just watch the response to posts like this ) who are quite happy for League to be a small parochial little game played by 'good honest grafters'. They despise anyone with 'star quality'. Look at the treatment of Tomkins. They despise successful clubs.

If the game itself (fans, players, pundits) hasn't got the wherewithal to find a way to persuade Nigel Wood and various others to hand over to people with fresh ideas, then the game itself doesn't have enough will power or desire to move forward and those of us that want to see the game grow are pee'ing in the wind. Over and out.

That was instead of council maintaining ground, which they were legally obliged to for twenty odd years. They didn't give us anything just bought themselves out of that obligation and probably for less than the maintenance would have cost.

Paying players more would not make them superstars. Superstars are made by media exposure which is unrelated to salaries.



No one is being held back. Paying players more wont make them better. Playing in competitive matches week in, week out, having to perform every week without being able to coast through games in first gear would make players better. The NRL, with their salary cap, are closer to this than we are and their players are better than ours.

Oh, and what decline?

We've had 4 different league winners in 4 years. Saints 08, Leeds 09, Wigan 10 and Wire 11. I'd say its slowly working

Paying players more money doesn't make them better players! We have lost what? 6 or 7 players to NRL or RU in the last two seasons, not like it is a massive impact.

I'd rather see a league where at the start of the season every team has a chance of winning it and we have different GF'ists every year (and every team is solvent) ala NRL than a league with a handful of massively paid superstars and only 2 or 3 teams have a cat in hells chance of winning silverware.

Thats almost wilfully missing the point though isnt it.

Whilst paying Danny Mcguire more probably wont be a better player if he is paid more, it does mean that the players leeds can attract to play with Danny Mcguire will be better, which means Danny Mcguire will be playing with and against a better quality of player, and as the logic behind it being a positive that the likes of Graham, Ellis, Burgess et al going to Aus states, playing with and against better players will make Danny Mcguire a better player.

Paying players more only improves the quality of players at one club - the one that can afford to pay their players more than anyone else. It doesn't improve the player pool and reduces the quality of the opposition by making it harder for them to keep their best players. As you quite rightly say Danny Mcguire needs to play with and against better quality players to make him a better player.

This applies to every player in Super League. The more competitive games, the more teams performing at the same level, the more they will push each other to higher levels. The teams who aren't competitive at the moment are the ones who cannot afford to spend the full cap. Removal or raising the cap will increase the number of uncompetitive teams, uncompetitive games and reduce the quality of players as the best players will be able to cruise through more games each season.

That clearly isnt true. It obviously improves the quality at any club which can afford to pay more than the current SC. Again, that simply isnt true. It does improve the player pool because it opens up opportunities to go for a better quality player. Leeds replacing Brett Delany with Greg Inglis improves the player pool in this country. There are clear and obvious other ways for us to limit the potential for a club to 'buy' success. Limits on squad size and make up would limit this as a possibility. And that doesnt come from players like Brett Delany, or Kylie Luelai. It would come from Matt Cooper or Petero Civoneceva.

You seem to have mistaken competitiveness, for quality. Kallum Watkins wont learn to be a better player by simply playing in a competitive league, he needs to play in a league which is competitive because it is high quality. The Championship is a fairly competitive league but Watkins isnt going to improve by playing in it because he still wont need to push himself. Making squads worse wont make individuals better. The lowering quality of the league in the name of competitiveness wont produce better players, it will produce worse players. The competitive aspect of it is only relevant when clubs are needing to push the boundries, where doing something new or different or better is needed to make that break. The race to the bottom created buy the SC doesnt create that environment, it creates an environment were squads are getting worse, they have more weaknesses to exploit and as such those weaknesses become easier for the talented individual exploit not harder.
How is Watkins supposed to learn how to beat Greg Inglis when he spends the year playing against George Carmont and Francis Meli?

The same argument which says it is a good thing James Graham is leaving to test himself in Australia simply highlights the folly of chasing competitiveness at the expense of quality.

No competitiveness drives quality. Without that competition there is nothing to drive up standards. Without that competition we will never develop a Greg Inglis and if he were to come over here he would soon become less of a player as he would be coasting through most games.

No, you have it backwards, quality drives competitiveness. Greg Inglis had to become the player he is because of the players he faces, not because he plays in a competitive league. He has to be that bit stronger, that bit faster, have that bit better ball handling, he has to learn that offload, practice those kick catches not because the league he plays in is competitive but because the players he plays against are that bit stronger, that bit faster, have that bit better ball handling, can learn that offload and catch that kick and if he cant do that then he gets left behind.

Making cuts elsewhere, making his halfback a bit worse, or his pack a bit weaker doesnt make Inglis a better player, playing with and against quality does.

If Inglis was playing behind a beaten pack but against a player the quality of Cameron Phelps he is going to be coasting anyway, he would have a harder time playing behind a dominant pack against the like of Tahu.

Yes. Because week in, week out, he faces players who are at a competitive level. To be the best he has to be that bit better than them and he has to be better consistently. Unlike over here where most weeks he would be facing players he could best with ease and that would see his skills decline. That is our problem and that problem can only be resolved by making the league more competitive. That will, in turn, drive up the quality of the players.