I could be interested in what you have got to say Smokey, but what's the point if you can't consider responses?
I could give a list of reasons, which you'd copy and paste into a multi-section quote, and then selectively ignore (the Grand Final appearance as your only measure of "success" being just one such recent example) either by choice or inability, what was raised next.
So many people have been through that so many times with you. Why would anyone bother again?

Ok then, don't. You're in favour of the sc but you aren't going to back it up. That's fine

Can anybody else then come out and say why they think the current Salary Cap Regulations are a good thing for the game in this country?

I can't see anything good about them and I personally would therefore scrap them immediately.

Plenty have, you just haven't read it.

When you can show the forum you can discuss, we might. Until then, we won't. Even in that last post, you show you can't.

I dont have anything to prove to you, especially considering your comments to wooden stand and how massively hypocritical you look when pretending to be some kind of bastion of civility whilst simultaneously patronising and insulting people.
Nobody is interested in your personal opinion of me, mine of you, how precious you become when people ask you to back up your opinion or how much of an I am, how important you think you and your opinion are or how much time we can waste talking about why you wont tell us why you think what you think. These things are self evident. Lets Get over it.

The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity - something that is so very rare in other RFL regulations.
However, I am coming around to the idea that clubs that can afford it should be allowed to pay one player outside of the cap, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable compromise IMO.

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity'" Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity'" Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity - something that is so very rare in other RFL regulations. However, I am coming around to the idea that clubs that can afford it should be allowed to pay one player outside of the cap, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable compromise IMO.'" It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased

Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity - something that is so very rare in other RFL regulations. However, I am coming around to the idea that clubs that can afford it should be allowed to pay one player outside of the cap, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable compromise IMO.'" It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased

Smokey ta talking about the needs of the rfl to be transparent....priceless

The purpose of the cap is very muddled and makes several claims:

1. They claim its supposed to equalize competition. For me, this hasn't worked, even if you agree with the motivation. I also have a problem with the whole concept of 'equalizing competition' anyway, because whilst generally desirable, its VERY hard to do it in a way that doesn't simply drag down the best clubs and create a talent drain. It's easier to get right when there's a ton of talent around, but we don't have that luxury.

Its also very naive to think of talent drain just in terms of top players going off to RU ( there aren't that many after all) - the real talent drain is the much more serious - but hidden - drain that starts with youngsters wondering what sports to try. Sports with glamour, fame and earning potential have the ability to attract more youngsters. Not *all* youngsters of course, but no one sensible can deny that the profile of a sport affects the level of junior interest. It doesn't mean we need to aspire to football style WAGs, etc, but its a issue nonetheless. The drain I'm worried about is the one that starts before a kid has even touched a rugby ball.

Solution: The problem with Wigan in the 90s wasn't for me about the first team, but the fact that the whole squad swept up the best talent in the League, so you had internationals on the bench that would have been better off (for the game of RL anyway) playing first team at another club. All we really need in terms of ensuring a reasonable spread of talent is hard squad limits, kind of like the 20/20 rule, although I'd be more aggressive and go for 13 'stars', 7 'sub-stars' and the rest juniors. That would *force* a spread of talent - if you're the second best scrum half (say) in the League, you're simply not going to be signed by the club with the best one - there's no room. In fact the 15th best scrum half in the country (who therefore is probably quite good) will be gracing a Championship side ... hopefully to take them to *promotion* ( another issue ! )

2. The cap is supposed to protect clubs. This one I'm not sure about -again, it doesn't seem to protect anyone in practise, and besides, why should the sport interfere with a clubs finances? Clubs don't *want* to go bust, but if they do, so what? 6 or 8 point deduction then someone, hopefully more financially savvy, buys it from the administrator. Shame on the clubs management who've got the shareholders or whoever to apologize to, but that's their problem really.

Scrap it.

Quote Wooden Stand="Wooden Stand"Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf'" But conceptually it's pretty straightforward and most people get it - apart maybe when they think you can 'save' cap space and then use it to go above the limit for a period believing it to be a maximum amount rather than a maximum rate. It could be summarised in a single sentence - unlike the complexities of the quota/non-fed system. However, as SmokeyTA points out: Quote Wooden Stand="SmokeyTA"It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased'" Couldn't agree more. It isn't just the cap (though the above is a classic example) - the whole system needs rationalising. The RFL just seem to keep piling regulation on top of regulation, making things ever more complicated. I hope the strategic review thing is grasped as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean for salary cap, competition structure, non-fed/quota, franchises - the lot; and then organise things properly, with some clear objectives in mind. Things need a shake now, IMO.

Quote Wooden Stand="Wooden Stand"Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf'" But conceptually it's pretty straightforward and most people get it - apart maybe when they think you can 'save' cap space and then use it to go above the limit for a period believing it to be a maximum amount rather than a maximum rate. It could be summarised in a single sentence - unlike the complexities of the quota/non-fed system. However, as SmokeyTA points out: Quote Wooden Stand="SmokeyTA"It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased'" Couldn't agree more. It isn't just the cap (though the above is a classic example) - the whole system needs rationalising. The RFL just seem to keep piling regulation on top of regulation, making things ever more complicated. I hope the strategic review thing is grasped as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean for salary cap, competition structure, non-fed/quota, franchises - the lot; and then organise things properly, with some clear objectives in mind. Things need a shake now, IMO.