We know that wouldn't be the case though, a few teams are ready to spend over if given the nod

It definitely wouldn't be the case, as if half the league spent the extra million the other half would be given an extra million to spend where's the attraction in that?

i believe in the nba it works differently, if the team spends under the set salary cap, at the end of the year the surplus money is divvied up amongst the players.

Would it not help a team like say Widnes, who dont get great crowds and have a relatively small turn over, but a wealthy invester who can spend money on a Marque player to help get crowds in and improve the team. If they can demonstrate that the deal will not make the club funds become dangerous. I am for the salary cap i think it works,but some clubs are poorly run and some are just smaller than others and therefore are hindered by the financial rules. This will at least give them the chance to spend on one great player if they can persuade him.

The cap does equal out.
If I remember right.
When SL started. Leeds Bradford Wigan and Saints all won SL in a season when they overspent the cap and got nothing but a daft fine for the season after.
Wigan and Wakefield both overspent on the cap to avoid relegation.
Pies got away with it because they could afford expensive lawyers but Wakefield got hit for 6 because they couldn't, like Bradford this year.
It proves what a leveller the cap is and when things go pear shaped through bad management what is required to alter things to gain an advantage.

Having a Marquee player then undermines that general equality and if a team can afford to stay competitive.

Although not effected by a cap, look back 25 years at Jonathan Davis at Widnes, his around £150k contract almost forced them into bankruptcy and then broke Warrington too.

Then there is the animosity from player colleagues who are on a contract massively below the marquee player.
It's like "animal farm"(not x-rated!) every one in the same team wearing same shirt, ride the same team bus watched by the same fans all playing and training for the same time aiming for the same goal and yet one player is more equal than the rest getting many times multiple his wages.

For me it's a dumb idea. Ok the wages cap may need to be looked at and increased, perhaps in line with inflation like most everybody else!

...in the Cullen era it was said that the Southern hemisphere players wouldn't mix with those from the northern hemisphere and the reason was down to the money they were on.

We need to get SJM to buy Salford from Koukash, to put an end to all this kind of nonsense.

Rico I think you being a little impish.
you know full well what I mean.
okay I'll bite.
There is always a difference in contract payment but they are far more subtle and fare, as you have to balance the cap into a 1st team squad of 25ish players.
Under this system the animosity is suppressed as the difference is within a margin.
If you have one player and golden ticket 2 or 3 players not within the cap, then there is an open cheque book and we go back to a system where players frequently fall out of favour because some new signing at his club is on more money than him, so they can get on the transfer market to get that deal from a director of another club who promised him £xxxxx over a game of golf if he joins them.

Those who approve be careful what you wish for.. the bottom line is the pot of players is still the same other than the ability to buy oversea players in addition but there wages go up and so will the turnstiles prices like (using the extreme example but the formula idea the same) Chelsea, with super inflated gate prices or you get another like Man City where the gate prices are subsidised by the owner to a tune of 25 times what is need to break even.

Ok then I will bite back.

I play for Warrington on £80k a year and look enviously at Roy Asotasi on his big bucks, it's part of the cap I'm stuck, unless that useless lump Chris Hill buggers off to Australia to be with Mike Cooper, or Paul Wood retires/goes to Salford.

Hang on though, Big Roy (2014 GF winner, MOS and Warrington's MVP) alerts TS that he wants to play for Widnes or else, so Moran and TS decide to take Big Roy out of the Salary Cap equation and make him our Marquee Player. Great here's my chance, his £250k is doubled to keep the big guy happy, he deserves it ran his blood to water and the saving on the cap is split between me, Kevin Penny and Gareth O'Brien.

Happy days everyone wins

But wire just signed Joe bloggs so you don't get big roy's share.

We will obviously go round the circular duck pond here, but, my original post was that I was going to try harder to get my slice. If I'm that good then Wire won't need Joe Bloggs, or a Joe Blogs on top Roy the Boy's big money.

BTW I think your next post that referred to being "careful what you wish for..." alludes to this. There's a limited pool and after you've got your marquee player, your average Joe Bloggs taking his slice of freed cap will be forcing up ticket prices, or sugar daddy subsidies without necessarily putting bums on seats.

My bigger slice will of course will be well deserved.

If I was the supporter of a "have-not" club and, hypothetically, mid-season was in the relegation mire I would be soiling my proverbials at the thought that my chairmen might risk the clubs stability, finances, future and existence with a final throw of the dice in the direction of a marquee player.

The cap was brought in to save clubs from themselves, and some of them clearly haven't learnt their financial lessons.

Dr NoClass may be a mouth in charge of a brain, but his saving grace is he is clearly an astute businessmen but he needs to understand the majority of SL chairmen, however well-intentioned, are not.

Mouth in charge of an Arris....sorry Harris for now