This is the crux of the problem. The two sides appear to be the Natural Selection proponents who will let teams die for the benefit of clubs controlling their own destiny; and the Holistic types who recognise the massive wastage that natural selection allows and try to tend towards similar ends through coercion and management instead. Arguably just the base political spectrum tbh, so no surprises there.

I do wonder if a strategy of handing out ropes and letting clubs either thrive or indeed hang themselves could work if we do enough to mitigate the inefficiencies of failure. I wonder if the RFL committed to openly preying upon faltering clubs; buying up facilities, club shares etc with a view to increasing centralisation, whether such a strategy could have long term benefits. Obviously there's a massive cost-benefit calculation to be done with respect to the benefits of centralisation, but the thought may be worth entertaining.

And from next year they do have some sort of exemption - the home grown cap rule helps protect (shockingly) home grown players from being poached - it's not ideal but it's a start!

Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"Not sure where you're looking? companycheck.co.uk/company/00331905 Liabilities 2mil net worth 14mil Also, with a closer look none of the liabilities are director loans (as was said) Wigan as a comparison companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... UB-LIMITED Liabilities 5mil Different accounting techniques by the looks of it, but no 13mill liabilities'" You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials

Quote Magic Superbeetle="Magic Superbeetle"Not sure where you're looking? companycheck.co.uk/company/00331905 Liabilities 2mil net worth 14mil Also, with a closer look none of the liabilities are director loans (as was said) Wigan as a comparison companycheck.co.uk/company/00174 ... UB-LIMITED Liabilities 5mil Different accounting techniques by the looks of it, but no 13mill liabilities'" You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials'" Yep, current liabilities were 2 mill (aka both sites agree) - I imagine the rest are the remaining overheads from the stadium (not that I know for sure) - obviously how it evolves in the coming years will confirm this - I doubt we paid for it as a lump sum (and equally I doubt we got paid for KR in a lump sum) The rest of the figures match too.

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"You may have to register but here you are. https://www.duedil.com/company/00331905 ... financials'" Yep, current liabilities were 2 mill (aka both sites agree) - I imagine the rest are the remaining overheads from the stadium (not that I know for sure) - obviously how it evolves in the coming years will confirm this - I doubt we paid for it as a lump sum (and equally I doubt we got paid for KR in a lump sum) The rest of the figures match too.

I see this gem got what it deserved....

Given Wigan paid £475K for Fielden, its not inconceivable that big money could change hands - especially if it was tied up with transfer of a player like Chase from a smaller club to a bigger (spending) one.

I thought it was a bit of a idea at first, but the more I think about it, the more it has some merit - a possible cash injection for struggling clubs and the chance for rich clubs to spend big to bring/keep superstars in SL.
I'm all for the cap trying to keep clubs from spending beyond their means, but not for the pretence of keeping a competition extra competitive.

I think its a major problem letting a club vote be the final decision. Clubs vote for what's good for them selves, if they know they can't afford extra wages for a marquee player, they won't want them allowed. Similary, I seem to recall a couple of years ago a vote on raising the salary cap which Leeds and Wigan voted against - sure, they have the money but they also had the two best squads and were winning trophies, so why would they want things to change?

I'm not saying we shouldn't listen tot he clubs, but I think its folly to always give them the final say.

You think your stadium's worth 14m? That's even funnier than the dreadnoughts and Macmanus' comment at the end of his statement about the game finally being in order...

Even a compromise of doubling the salary cap i think most people could accept, the fact Wakefield and the like can't spend to it is not our problem.

My mate spent 6k on a holiday for him and his Wife in New Zealand, I would love to be able to afford it and go to the same place but I can't and I accept that, should we limit everyone to a weekend in Bognor Regis eating fish and chips every night because 'it's not fair.
Likewise I'm a grown adult so I'm not going to spend 6k to keep up with the joneses just because he has.
I spend what I can afford because I know spending beyond that will leave me homeless.
My life probably won't be as enriched as his due to his freedom with the money, similar to a Wakefield fan won't enjoy the nights out at Old Trafford, that's life, it isn't fair and as Vossy says "tough titties"

No but we all benefit from the Welfare State which effectively means that no-one should starve and guarantees at least a minimum standard of living. Applying that principle to sports seems reasonable enough to me -

Look up the dictionary definition of league -
"a covenant or compact made between persons, parties, states, etc., for the promotion or maintenance of common interests or for mutual assistance or service"

The RFL and any other sporting organisation try to allow clubs to compete on a reasonably level playing field. I suppose it depends on what you think the point of a league is. If you believe in just allowing the rich to dominate because that is 'fair' then you probably end up with the Scottish Football League. If you keep the Salary Cap etc then you may end up with the NRL. I know which I'd prefer.

'May end up with NRL'

May, not will.

In truth we attract a minimum of 12 rich backers and we're good, as Koukash is seeing all that money isn't helping with all the restraints, maybe the salary cap puts off the rich backer?

Maybe.

Its a danger i agree that he could get bored and leave. He is far better for the game than owners he do not invest or spend. But some clubs can not afford it and that is the bigger problem. But the ones that can not spend do not spend to the cap whilst controlling what all the owners have to do. Its poor run clubs who run SL.