Alot of emphasis seems to be on salary cap, but forgetting Wakey are/were operating on the lowest budget in Super League by quite a bit. Wakey even offloaded some of the higher earners, and replaced them with players who are either on loan or probably on less than their predecessors. So I dare say are now on an even lower salary budget than earlier in the season. Pretty weak argument in my opinion.

Not all Championship sides are part -time.. And who said anything about knocking SL salary cap down.Both Bradford and London were given parachute payments for being relegated and still remain full-time. You speak totally from a SL perspective and obviously suffering from tunnel vision.

If the roles change next season,I'm pretty sure you'll be asking the same questions.

You will get no excuses from me.As Saturday will definitely be a level playing field.

I think it was JGR who stated in another thread that Salford were 300k under the salary cap with their offloading..Thats still 550k above our salary cap.Yes pretty weak argument indeed.

At the beginning of this season SL's elite played the NRL elite, Saints got hammered as they were not used to playing at such intensity against better players. I am sure that after a season in the NRL they would not lose by the same margin and the younger players would be greatly improved
We are in that transition, and if we can beat the champ clubs will be better prepared for the one off game to decide promotion

I agree.

Your original post on this thread, I believe, was aimed at Wakefield, not Salford. Who I dare say will be still spending alot more than Wakey. However I guess this will be forgotten about again if Leigh win.

Well I stated Salford for a couple of reasons..One of which you have one in your ranks included in your salary cap. As for something being well publicized as some say to your current income/expenditure.Do you have a link to prove what your saying..

I don't think you'll need a link to know that Wakefield can't spend the same as Salford.

Did you state Salford because of their somewhat frivolous owner who openly states he doesn't really care too much for the salary cap? Taken from an interview with Michael Carter in the YEP earlier in the year: "This year was always in my mind one of staying in Super League. If we can achieve this, then next year through our debt reduction and increase in TV money, we would have an extra £175k to invest in the first team. This would bring us to just £50k short of the current salary cap limit."

Not sure how accurate this is, but going by that, we are operating at £225k less than the current salary cap. Although this interview was in May, and we have since offloaded some higher earners. Granted the Championship has less to play with, but the point is you're up against a team running with the smallest budget in the League you are competing for a place in. Fair enough we now have Locke from Salford, but if rumors are to be believed he's not on a massive wedge, and apparently offered to play for peanuts just to get some game time to prepare himself for a return to the NRL.

As I understand it Locke's salary cap value has nothing to do with how much you are paying him, it is set from his value at Salford, though I have been known to be wrong in the past.

Is Hock fit, I was told Saturday he was out for four weeks