]

So as I've said before looms like league will stay small fry forever and we all should get used to it.

There is a pretty simple solution that doesn't involve colluding to exploit players.

If you cant spend significantly more, don't spend significantly more.

Leeds specifically would also have the option of not paying the RU club hundreds of thousands in management fees, they would have the option of not having £2m sitting in the bank, they would have the option of calling in the £2m the RU club owe them, they would have the option of Caddick putting more money in, they would have the option of building their business. All options for not exploiting players whilst also not going in to debt.

This thinking is just massively wrong. Its clearly wrong. Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Huddersfield, Salford can still only have 25 first team players, they can still only have 7 overseas players, and they still need to have 7 club developed players in that 25.

They couldn't sign every player, just the same amount. Every other player would need to negotiate with the other clubs, and if they other clubs don't have more money, don't offer them more money. Players can only sign the contracts they are offered. A level would be found.

I don't know why you'd say that.
We have to grow at our own rate. Is it as quick as I'd like, no of course not. But just pretending we can suddenly compete with the money on offer in Union and the NRL is fantasy.
It's not a quick fix. It's decades of consistent hard & smart work that will get the sport to grow. Not just a hit and hope of getting rid of the SC and we'll just find the money.
We currently cannot compete with Union or the NRL in pure financial terms. It's just something we have to suck up and get on with working to overcome.
Pretending that the money is there to compete but we're just not spending it is just bizarre.

Hull FC, under Hetherington, made a modest profit year on year. Then Adam Pearson bought the club and said he was shocked at the way the club had been run, with facilities and youth development being badly neglected.
So for the last few years he has invested in these areas and we have made losses.

He won't be spending hundreds of thousands every year like he has recently, but it's still unlikely that we will be profitable without scrimping in other areas. Not unless our attendances improve significantly or a new TV deal can be negotiated.

My point here is that Hull are one of the bigger clubs. I would imagine, without looking at figures, that our turnover is probably 3rd or 4th of the Superleague teams. We could run to £2m if that was required (we're paying an awful lot more this season with the guys we've had to pay off), but not without Pearson's money to balance the books. So if we can't afford it where does that leave Wakefield? Or Widnes? etc etc.

Still being able to afford to spend the same amount they can now.

are you of the belief that a dozen more Marwans will be attracted to the game if the cap is removed?

This thread has been Smokey'd

No.

I think the SC does ensure that there is some money that could come in to the game is left on the table as it were. But no I don't think that there are a dozen Koukash's waiting for it to go.

come on the game has stood still for over 15 years stop kidding yourself.

come on man

Perhaps we should look at loosening the salary cap but at the same time reducing the number of senior players. Having a smaller core of well paid senior squad members backed up by home grown players would spread the quality around whilst benefiting those who produce there own youngsters. It would also allow the quality to be paid according to their ability.

You think the game is the same standard as it was 15 years ago? The standard on the pitch is of a massively higher standard.
15 years ago The RFL was in debt following a disastrous World Cup.
15 years ago RFL revenue was roughly 1/3rd of what is now.
Crowds are roughly 25% higher today than they were 15 years ago.

Has it grown as much as I'd like, no. Has it grown, definitely but slowly and with plenty of setbacks along the way, some very much avoidable.

I'll ask you again, where do Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Huddersfield & Warrington find millions of pounds extra? And if they've got it available why aren't they currently spending it on other areas?

Quick point of order the SC hasn't been in place in its current format for 15 years despite hat being a convenient time frame for HIM.

It's also worth noting that in 2001 Wigan were spending £3.2m and the SC was £2.3m. Since then it has fallen to £1.7m. The SC now is nearly half what Wigan were spending 13 years ago I'm absolute terms. In real terms it is about a third of what Wigan were spending had the SC simply kept up with inflation.

But apparently the SC has been a catalyst for growth but clubs now cannot afford half of what the SC was 13 years ago. This despite even the RFL themselves publicly stating that clubs should spend more on player wages. Even the RFL believe it was 'time to cut the purse strings'

For some reason though those who financially benefit from a low cap a don't want to raise it. I cannot possibly think of a reason why a business owner would want to pay his workers less buy unbelievably they do.

You seem to think player salaries is the absolute measure of growth and nothing else matters. How does youth investment compare over the time frame? Business infrastructure? Training facilities? Sustainability?

As a saints fan I'd suggest Wigan are in a much stronger position now then they were 15 years ago. They spent 5-10 years sulking about the cap, and it almost got them relegated, they have since learnt that they can benefit in other areas and rose again (annoyingly )

As for saints transformation over the time period, well, there is no comparison. If other owners can't or won't take those benefits presented to the two clubs mentioned, then why is letting them spend more of player salaries going to change anything, other than giving into the boom or bust mentality some seem to have?

ALao, the suggestion that McManus, who is one of the loudest advocates of the cap, is in it for financial gain is absolutely laughable when you look at the millions he's spent getting Saints to where they are today. You seem to think reasonable assement and feasibility are code words for underhand tactics, when no such evil plot exists.

I am an advocate of a small, controlled increase to the cap, and a feasible, open and timely growth model is produced for the cap. But it is important it remain feasible. We're still not in a situation where 12 can afford to spend the whole cap for christs sake!

Ps where's your proof that Wigan could afford to spend 3.2m in 2001 and they weren't grossly spending over what they could afford?