Losing the SC doesn't necessitate a free for all. Perhaps it's time we looked at a better way of achieving what we want to achieve.

The first step is actually deciding what it is that we want to achieve.

Only three clubs won the league title in the 10 years before the salary cap was brought in.

Wigan won it 8 times and used their spending power to monopolise the competition, buying up talent from other clubs.

I don't want to see a repeat of that.

What he said.

Are you saying that either a total disregard or a scrapping of the S.C. doesn’t affect the game?

I presume you are referring to the governing body when you talk of having no affect, but after all they are just the custodians & are ultimately answerable to the clubs. I don’t believe, if it went to a vote, the twelve clubs would vote in a scrapping of the cap.

If it turns out that a number of clubs are using underhand methods to circumvent the system, there’s no wonder the same clubs continue to be successful.

The irony of the whole situation though, is little old Salford becoming implicated, whilst achieving the square route of sod all.

the same 'old' teams winning the SL trophy etc seem to be the ones who have invested heavily in their academy/youth systems over the past years/decade


maybe your club should do that instead of going for the quick fix like warrington did a couple of years ago, at least they now realise you have to bring youth through which enables you to spend that little extra on quality players, something tha leeds, saints and wigan have had the luxury of doing over the past years

Well firstly only 7 would need to vote to scrap it. But yes, I'm not saying scrapping the cap won't effect the game I'm saying it doesn't actually affect the RFL themselves and questioning their stomach for the fight.

I'd also question a lot of the clubs stomach for it aswell. Wakefield for instance may want to keep the cap, are they comfortable to actually committing funds to fight for it if necessary?

At if Leeds win the title this season, we will have had 3 winners in 10 years, with Leeds winning 7 of those. Not an awful lot of difference.

True. And I'm pretty confident there will be different answers from different clubs too.

Rugby League has too much legislation, along with very weak enforcement. From the routinely ignored anti-tampering deadline, to the constant retreat of the fed-trained rule and the many loopholes in the salary cap. Not forgetting the comedy of the licensing criteria.

Even when a team is caught breaking the rules, the tariffs are next to meaningless. Wigan's flagrant disregard of the of the salary cap - 4 points, Leeds disguised player loans to Fev and Hunslet - £2000(!), and plenty of others. The RFL lacks independence and the will to really deal with breaches - their life would be made easier if they had fewer, simpler rules, yet they are forever adding complexity and changing direction.

I'm not by instinct a de-regulator. But if rules aren't respected and enforced, they're worse than useless. Wigan and Leeds free of the cap is a bit scary, but if there was the pay-off every club having greater freedom to run their affairs their own way, for better or worse, it might be worth it.

It's part of the reason for their success, but one that is massively overstated IMO. Their ability to invest in all aspects of the club/team is why they have dominated. The focus on 'doing things the right way' is a perfectly natural image for the club to want to project, but it's only part of the picture.

The thing about Wire's quick fix is that it worked (eventually ) - despite the lack (relative to the other successful clubs) of academy graduates, they won three Challenge Cups and went to two GFs.

The more obvious, if less romantic, correlation is not between on-field success and investment in youth but on-field success and finance. Stretching the cap by exploiting loopholes is probably at least as important as the academy production line.

But the problem is the thought of clubs running their affairs their own way. We tried that and it very nearly killed the sport.
Without a method of limiting what a club can spend on players do we really think clubs will spend money on academies and player development? Without some method of limiting the number of overseas players at a club do we really think clubs will play more British players?

It takes a lot of rules and regulations to run a sport. We have to protect players, especially young players, who may be exploited for instance. So that requires rules and regulations regarding what age they can be signed and in what manner and when they can be played in certain age groups etc.

I agree the RFL appear weak, but the solution, in my opinion, is for the RFL to grow a pair. Ensure they are properly funded and resourced so we can appoint professionals to the relevant roles and enough support staff to assist them.

True. And I'm pretty confident there will be different answers from different clubs too.

I appreciate that having a strong youth setup is an essential path to a successful club, however, I was under the impression this thread related to S.C. misdemeanours.

I was purely speculating that if some clubs are paying above & beyond the agreed thresholds they can employ the cream of the sport which could perpetuate their success.

Oh & thanks for the reference regarding my club & youth systems, people in glass houses & all that.

If this story does have legs, I’m pretty certain my “Whipping Boy” club won’t be in the vanguard.

Absolutely - and I'm not advocating [icomplete[/i anarchy. Just sticking to workable, enforceable rules - and yeah, a bit more freedom for clubs to innovate and/or adapt to their own particular circumstances. The one-size-fits-all 'solutions' of licensing were broadly sensible in principle, but too prescriptive and unrealistic.

Somewhere in between there's a balance to be found.

I personally don't think clubs should spend money on player development - unless they view it as being in their own self-interest. The RFL should run the academy system IMO - with money 'taken' from the SL clubs' TV cash. If you're forcing organizations to do things 'for the greater good' they'll generally do a half-assed job, focusing instead on stuff that helps them more directly. My fear is that RFL academies would be staffed by ex-pros who'd fallen on hard times rather the best and brightest coaches, but that's more of a cultural problem.

As for more British players, for sentimental reasons I'd like to see a decent number of fed-trained players in SL, but I'm dubious about how much protectionism can help in developing quality players. It's always seemed a demand side solution to a supply side problem, to me.

Lot of inverted commas in my post - yuk.