Everything it relative Smokey. So in saying how well the salary cap does in achieving it's aims, you have to measure that relative to other options.

Of which there are very very many. The Salary Cap set out its aims, talent distribution, financial prudence, and protection against wage inflation, in two of those aims it has failed. It may have done better than having no SC but it has still failed

Firstly, what makes you think it's failed?
Secondly, if it's done better than no salary cap, it's a relative success.

no it isnt, just because hypothetically it isnt the worst, doesnt mean it has been a success.
And I think it has failed because it has, talent isnt being distributed to the level it should and it isnt forcing clubs to be run sustainably.

With these specific proposals and unchallengable positive outcomes, you sound like the Mitt Romney of Rugby League. You're hired

I could say "yes it does" and we won't get far, but it's as far as we'll get if you just answer with little more than "no it isn't"

Following another year where at least five clubs had a real shot at winning the title as recently as a week ago, and a club making their first GF appearance Why do you think talent isn't being distributed?
In terms of running clubs sustainably, the salary cap could only ever control a part of a club's expense. Rather than argue against it, if that's how you feel about it perhaps you should argue that the cap cover more of club spending?

Well it isnt stopping clubs over-spending, which isnt surprising considering it is a completely arbitrary figure, and it would be idiotic to pretend it is financially prudent for clubs turning over £3/4/5million to be spending the same as clubs turning over £10/12/13million, and it isnt distributing the talent. What else do you want. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, because it is very easy to counter any evidence of a negative with straw men and red herrings like your argument about the success of the SC only being judged relative to a hypothetical none-existent world. If you want to argue otherwise, it should be very easy for you to show a causal link between this salary cap that we have, and an increase in financial prudence and talent distribution. That is how we prove things after all.

in the 14 years of the grand final, out of the 28 possible finalists we have had a total of only 6 different finalists. Two of them only once, 26 out of 28 final berths have been taken by just 4 teams, the 'big 4'. Of the two to join them, one of them is Warrington, a club who have spent a whole lot of their owners money, have no trouble spending to the cap, and would have no trouble spending more than it, and Hull, a club which has great facilities given to them and very big fanbase. The none of the big Salary capped sports use the salary cap as their talent distribution mechanism, they have drafts for that.
The cap will never force a club to be run sustainably, no cap ever could. Limiting your spending isnt running a business sustainably. Cutting your cloth accordingly can sometimes simply leave you with an ever shrinking piece of cloth. Sometimes clubs will need to spend more on some things, and less on others. Sometimes it is prudent spend that money on a big name, sometimes it isnt. Clubs are far too complex as entities to try such an approach. Whats best at a certain time for Wakefield may not be whats best for Leeds at that time. Clubs need the freedom to do what is best. There are other options to make sure we dont see clubs stacking talent and spending ridiculous sums on players.

Again Smokey, you shouldn't just state an opinion without saying why.
Why do you think it isn't stopping clubs over spending?
Why do you think it isn't distributing the talend?




Getting there slowly. At least we have a little bit if reasoning behind an opinion now.
Why do you choose the Grand Final as your measure? Is that the only way to measure the spread of talent amongst the league. Or was it a case of selecting evidence to justify an opinion rather than seeking evidence to gain an opinion?



Incorrect. The NFL is a big salary capped sport and does not use a draft just for one. Some, but not all, other salary capped sports have additional mechanisms to help spread talent. We don't have the structure to allow a draft.



I don't see anyone having ever claimed that the cap could force a club to be run sustainably, or that any cap ever could. Nor has anyone ever said that limiting your spending is running a business sustainably. Nor that clubs don't sometimes need to spend more or less on some things or other things. Nobody has claimed that what's best of Wakey might not be what's best for Leeds. Just who are you arguing with, with those claims?

I have said why, numerous times. Its you who seems to be avoiding stating why you think it is stopping clubs overspending, and why you think it is distributing talent. Why is that?
Because, as i said. It is an arbitrary figure, it bears no relation to what a club can afford. It would be stupid to pretend Leeds can only afford as little as Wakefield, and as stupid to pretend Wakefield can afford to spend as much as Leeds. The Salary Cap isnt a cap on player wages of what a club can afford, it is a simply one figure applied to vastly different situations. Why do you think it has stopped clubs over spending?
Because it doesnt and it hasnt done so. Why do you think it has?


Well the aim of spreading talent would be to spread the chance of success, so success would be pretty much definitive measure of it.
How else would you measure the spread of talent if not the spread of, well, talent?
The NFL pretty famously does have a draft.We can have whatever structure we like. And yes, most do have additional talent distribution mechanisms, they dont just use a Salary Cap. It is pretty much only RU and RL which dont

If the SC doesnt aim to do those things, then why does it? And if these things arent good things, then why do we accept it?

BTW, it is interesting that you are yet to actually put forward an argument in support of the SC, to show the good things it does and it acheives which couldnt be achieved through other, better means. It is interesting that you are focussing on the logical fallacy of arguing I havent proved a negative, are drawing a false dichotomy that it is this specific cap or none at all, than actually showing why we should have it. The SC needs to prove itself, it isnt the default position. The SC has aims and objectives and they are real, and measurable. If the SC works then there is proof, and evidence, and logic and a causal link between the SC and those aims being achieved. It is interesting how long you have spent avoiding explaining what you think the aims of the SC are and your evidence that these are being achieved as best they could under this SC system rather than any other.

I'm not the one arguing agains the cap though.


Correct. It's a arbitary figure that bears no relation to what an individual club can afford to pay to player.
Nobody has suggested Wakefield can afford to spend as much as Leeds. Not that I've seen. Please point me towards where someone has. No one has argued that the cap is related to what clubs can afford or that club situations aren't vastly different. Again, who are you arguing with here?


I didn't say it had, did i?



Is a GF appearance your only measure of success then? Other than that, it doesn't matter if a team comes 1st of 14th in the regular rounds and the CC is irrelevant? As I pointed out earlier, a case of evidence to suit an argument rather that looking at the evidence to try to find the right answer.


Quite some change to your earlier statement then. That was a typo by me BTW, should have read the NRL doesn't have a draft.


That just doesn't make grammatical sense

As stated much earlier, I'm not the one arguing the salary cap should be dropped. If we had no cap or a different cap, I could argue for it and show why I believed it could be a good thing. You have a habit of backing yourself into a corner on an opinion, which closes your view of contrary evidence, so just takes the way the point of highlighting it to you. Cases such are your very selective measure of the success of a club just go to further demonstrate this, as does that fact that you just entirely missed the points I made or questions I asked, in favour of the cap.

no you are arguing for it but refusing to justify why you are for it.

so you accept it bears no relation to financial prudence, considering that it seems very odd you have taken a position where the sc has achieved its aim of forcing clubs to be financially prudent.
good, so we all accept that the sc has failed in its aim to force clubs to be financially prudent


well yes, success is the only measure of success. The cc doesn't have a salary cap so yes it is irrelevant. You have yet to provide any evidence of anything in support of any of your arguments

what change would that be?

....and why do you think this would be a good thing for the sport of rugby league?


Not news to us. Why you think so would be though.



Still waiting for your "why" and explanation, if you're able to come up with one.

You haven't offered a single logical response to any couter argument from any poster, and do indeed act like a "Wooden Stand"