IMO I agree based on lack of player movement and the ability of those clubs to stockpile top players. Only club in NRL that did that was Melbourne and look at what came to light there. It was only due to a whistle blower that the storms cheating was found despite rigorous procedures in the NRL so to suggest that the rfl would know is somewhat naive.

So the Leeds CEO is lying when he says Leeds have space in the salary cap?

No defense whatsoever. We can assume automatically that what you write is your opinion, unless you're quoting someone else.

Is it more naive to believe the RFL ( plus club on-the-record assertions ) or the opinion of an anonymous poster on these boards?

Do you really need that question answering? That's what this board is all about. Someone states a fact and opinions are formed form said fact.

It wouldn't be RLFANS otherwise

The government has recently changed laws to make it more difficult to sue someone over this type of thing. As people were suing for the slightest little thing. I doubt someone saying a certain club is over the salary cap IMO is libellous

Well, I'm pleased about that, as our libel laws are ridiculous. However, it's still unfair to bandy about accusations with (a) no facts to support them and (b) whilst maintaining anonymity.

I see what your saying. I personally believe that some clubs manage their salary cap better than others, my club is a prime example of not getting value for money from the cap in recent years. Some people look at other clubs squads and assume they must be over the cap. Like I said in an earlier post clubs like Leeds have manged their cap really well and have probably paid players slightly less than other clubs would have paid those players due to success. If might only be slightly less per player, but over 30 man squad that could be enough for maybe 3 more quality players. I know Gareth Ellis has been rumoured to have taken less money at Hull because of the ambition shown by the owner, whereas in recent years we would have had to offer him significantly more money to get him

The salary cap is one thing and I'd be very surprised if any club was daft enough to breach it in ways that are immediately obvious from a cursory glance at the wage bill.

Third party payments, benefits in kind and the employment of relatives by the club/associated companies are another thing entirely, and I'd be very surprised if that's not standard practice at those clubs who have the wherewithal to do so.

Why on earth would all 3 sides - and Wigan and Leeds in particular - invest so heavily in their academies and bring through young players if their secret aim was to breach the cap in order to sign superstars? Who are, in case you hadn't noticed, pretty thin on the ground in both camps these days. Nope, my guess is that having established conveyor belts of young talent these clubs would now favour retention of the cap as it ensures our current dominance won't be undermined by a sugar daddy taking over potential rivals.

Rumoured by who? Someone who likes making things up? I can't see any player deciding to take less money because of "ambition shown by the owner", certainly not someone who is at the back end of his career and signing his last big contract.

As reported by the press.

Also for a 3 year deal. Do you really think someone like Gareth Ellis would sign for a team likely to be fighting for the wooden spoon just for more money

Well in that case we can take it as absolute gospel.

As for him signing for money. Well, I'm sure there were other factors in his decision, I'm not suggesting there weren't, but the cash would have been the main one. Of course it was. If Widnes made him the highest paid player in Superleague, he'd be there now - regardless of what "ambition" Hull's crackpot chairman might show.