Couldn't agree more.

Its got nothing to do with Salford coming into money.Its a reality that if something isnt done about the gulf in earning ability between SL and the NRL/RU then we will lose more and more star players.This will dilute the quality of SL and make it even more unattractive to outside sponsorship which will seriously affect the long term sustainability of SL.

As for SL being more competetive than ever then you must be watching a different SL to me.I believe only 4 teams have won a Grand Final since SL started.Its the same teams year in year out.Doesnt seem very competetive to me.
There have also been plenty of instances of SL clubs ending up in financial trouble throughout the SL era so how exactly does that show that a salary cap works.
Isnt it time to let the guys who run their clubs take responsibility for their own finances and not have others dictating what they can and cannot do.The RFL can have penalties for clubs that end up in financial trouble and leave the ball in their court.If they break the rules then they pay the price for their own failings.

Different clubs winning things is not the definition of being competitive.

Thats all very Zen of you,

So your definition is just losing to the same top teams but just not by as much as before.As long as you put on a good show.Sounds great.
Sorry but i want to see more teams winning or at least having a realistic chance to do so.

Is there not a massive disparity in Premier League football between the wealthy clubs like United, Chelsea and City compared to clubs like Southampton, Crystal Palace and Norwich City etc, etc??? In my opinion the wealthy clubs in football help the finances of smaller clubs by enhancing the profile of the league, gate reciepts, sponsorship and television revenue.

A question, how do you think the Premier League would rank now against la liga and the bundersliga if a salary cap and overseas quota has been brought in several years ago?

Bring in some form of system that allows for rich clubs to spend but the smaller clubs benefit from.

In simplistic terms you're allowed to spend over it but what ever you spend over it you equally have to pay into a pot.
So if you go £1000 over the cap you have to pay another £1000 into a pot, every penny that is spent over the cap by every club has to be doubly paid for.
Every club that then doesn't spend over the cap receives an equal amount of that money.

If Koucash or Moran want to throw 500K at a player over the cap, it, in real terms, costs you 1 million.

If scrapping the salary cap enticed more wealthy owners into the game,which by the way Dr Koukash said in his opinion it would,then what is so wrong with that.
Why do we feel the need to regulate the system and Dumb down to the lowest common denominator.Theres nothing wrong with striving for excellence and wanting to bring the best into our game.
If we had more star names in the game then that would generate more interest/revenues from TV,Sponsors and paying fans.Everyones a winner.

I couldn't agree more. High profile superstars puts bums on seats and attracts sponsorship, not poor quality close games.

The NFL manages just fine with a salary cap and there's a ridiculous amount of money there.

The problem is that people have unrealistic expectations of what rugby league can be as a sport. Unfortunately, I can't see it ever generating the kind of crowds and money that some people want it to get. We can strive to make it bigger and better than it is, but I don't think simply getting rid of the salary cap is going to magically do that.

That [iis[/i the definition. I never said it was great. But getting rid of the salary cap would only worsen matters.

I hope Bill Gates likes rugby league.