Quote DaveO="DaveO"We are not not doing that though are we. In RL in the UK we are imposing a [imaximum standard[/i by preventing those who can afford it from competing for the signatures of the best players.
In Australia their salary cap regulations include a minimum wage for all players in a clubs top 25 first team squad. It is AUD $80,000 or approx £43K. (Total cost £1.075m id you paid all 25 players that wage).
I think if you want minimum standards brought in, it should mean that kind of thing and if clubs can't pay it they have no right to be in the league. I'd go further and say if you can't afford to pay to the salary cap you won't be competitive so I'd use that as qualification for the league as well.
You are taking that definition out of context with your definition being a more political definition relating and what not to alliances similar to this
"An association of states, organizations, or individuals for common action; an alliance."
Here is the definition of league when it refers to sport from the free on-line dictionary (which is where the above definition also comes from).
"Sports An association of teams or clubs that compete chiefly among themselves."
Nothing to do with "maintenance of common interests or for mutual assistance or service" or such things.
You won't end up with the NRL at all. It is myth their teams are all equally wealthy anyway. Sport is about competition and artificial limits on competition in sport are false. This is not the welfare state but sport. They are different and trying to transfer the principles of the welfare state to a naturally competitive environment just does not work.'"
As ever, a well argued response. I find myself agreeing with you!
I guess that my worry is that Rugby League in this country just cannot get the support of either ordinary people or business people in order to compete with the NRL or Union. I feel that if we adopted the type of winner takes all mentality that some posters are arguing for, then the game will die and we will be left with a few (relatively) rich clubs. My definition of league was indeed political, but political as you know, encompasses all of life.
The original idea of promoting a league was to provide competition but also to provide support for each other. You are right that sport IS about competition - but would you say that sport is about anything else? For me -It certainly has a role in the community and it provides entertainment too.
What I don't want is to see the likes of Bradford die. Actually I find the lack of support on here for less succesful clubs quite depressing. I thought we were a community in Rugby League? Bradford may have been badly run - but it is the players and fans that suffer. And ultimately we do too. I'm not interested in watching Wigan in an endless groundhog day of Saints derby matches.
