We were talking about whether or not abolishing the Salary Cap would save the game. It won’t if there isn’t enough money in the pot to pay for it.

Sulkily saying ‘Okay let’s sell our players instead’ … adds nothing whatever to the debate, because we’ll be selling more than our players if we finish up with a league consisting of Wigan, Salford, Warrington and Leeds. That’s the crisis the game is facing – the SL doesn’t have enough money to sustain itself as things are without throwing ourselves open to NRL-type salary demands.

Some people, it seems, still don't get it.

The SC is not the only thing wrong with the management of RL. There are so many things wrong with the way the sport is run that it's difficult to know where to start. The SC is however as good a place as any. THe SC reflects wider issues and problems in the game - lack of ambition, a failure to grasp what a real system of financial controls would look like, envy amongst some people in the RL world that some players might make significantly higher wages than they do, a desire on the part of club owners to reduce pay in real terms. The SC makes many of these problems worse.

The SC is a failure, it has failed to level the playing field significantly, it has failed to provide financial stability, it has seen increasing numbers of players leave the game. To those who say we cannot afford to pay more, the only answer is that we have to find ways of doing so or the SL will become a semi-pro league more like the French championship than what we think of as top flight RL. This is because the SC era has seen appalling financial performance to the extent that clubs cannot afford to pay much more than the SC (and some clubs can't afford even to spend the full SC). Inflation has eroded the real value of the SC by more than 30%. Inflation will continue to chip away at the real value of the SC until the game goes semi pro.

What we need is a rigorous system of financial planning and monitoring. The pro SC brigade still like to pretend that there are only two options, scrap the cap (or raise it to unaffordable levels) or the status quo, when there is obviously a third option - introducing a better system.

Also when people talk about the risks of not having the current cap in place they not only forget that we could have a better system, they also forget that the risks involved in not doing anything are massive.

I absolutely agree with the bit I've underlined. I've never been a fan of the salary cap per se, and I totally believe that it was introduced to peg Wigan back - not to even the playing field, but specifically to undermine a Wigan club who had just acquired a very rich owner in Dave Whelan - and I'd be strongly in favour of moderating it so that those who really try to contribute to the game get rewarded. I'd also be dead keen to hear about any realistic and constructive alternative - I genuinely would, as I too believe that drastic action is now necessary to save us.

However, the exchange of views I engaged in earlier was in response to a rather spurious accusation that IL, by voting to keep the Salary Cap, was responsible for the game's decline (which frankly was no more than a flimsy attempt to cast yet more aspersions on him). The situation is nothing like that simple. If anything, I'd argue that IL's attitude is actually in response to the game's decline.

Until we find ways to pay more, as you yourself say, it could be that clubs have no option but to maintain the Salary Cap as it is because they can see how parlous the game's financial state is. Their chairmen are much closer to the books than we are, and they know who can and can't afford to compete. If there are lot more who can't than can, then we are in real trouble.

The other problem is that, even if we had an unlimited cap, what kind of fees would seriously be required to keep the likes of Sam away from the new-look NRL? Not only would we need to improve on the massive cash they can flaunt, but we'd have to make it worth his while to remain in our failing competition and stay away from the Sydney lifestyle and a league which now really is the best and most exciting in the world, and where British players are at last getting respect on a national stage. You can imagine the field-day the likes of Sam's agent would have if he could ask for anything he wanted.

It's a nightmarish mess, but to lay it at the door of the Wigan chairman because he cast one of several votes to keep our cap at a manageable level is a bit ridiculous.

Has he damaged the game by letting Sam go? Maybe. I think all losses of great players damage the game - the NRL is a much bigger problem for us than Union ever was, because players defecting to the NRL maintain respect - but it may also be that by allowing Sam to go a year early, we're in a better position to keep others. It's all about balancing the books and not getting into debt - even with no cap, we'd have that consideration.

Maintain respect? Not sure what you mean here.

Sam is a RL player, way more suited to RL than RU (though imo he will go in the future to try it out)

Josh would fit into RU like a glove and I can see him going very soon.

No-one is laying all the blame for the CC at the feet of IL, that would be silly.

HOWEVER, he did vote for the status quo so must share some of the blame.

As DeanoG says the CC is symptomatic of the attitude of the RFL in general.

No arguments from me on the underlined bit.

By maintaining respect I meant they don't get the criticism for taking a soft option (whether deserved or undeserved).

IL voted to keep the salary cap at the level it is because most clubs don't spend it anyway and the divide between the top and the bottom would have been even greater. He has criticised the RFL on numerous occasions with regards to us losing players to the NRL/RU but I guess you would have to listen to what he actually says in full rather than find the bits you dislike and run with them.

On the Tomkins move BTW, I have a feeling he'll play at 6 for the Warriors with Tommy moving to 9 to replace Nathan Friend (who I THINK is leaving) and Locky staying at full back.

Can't see him being too happy to be a sub and he's far too talented for that so unless they sell him (which again I can't see) then there isn't much room for him. A 9, 7, 6, 1 of Leuluai, Johnson, Sam and Locke has me pretty excited though as a Warriors fan.

Agreed. As pointed out, the "level playing field" excuse clearly hasn't worked, and in my view a return to the original concept of "50% of income" (or similar) should be reintroduced; applied retrospectively, so that, for example, 2012 income determines 2013 allowed expenditure, and so on.

Is that right? I thought they did. Didn't London even manage to spend up to the cap this year?

Most can't afford too and when they try they end up in financial trouble. Why would we raise it?

London pay their players more due to the cost of living as mentioned in another thread by FT.

got a year extension but i believe your correct that he's going to be interchanging with tommy.

It wouldn't be a disaster because he will have fulfilled his contract and given us value for money. It would be a shame if he left as I am sure he will have plenty left in the tank and I'd like to think we would try and retain his services. Not sure what H has got to do with the Tomkins situation though.



He has done nothing new at all here. Ever since the contract system came in we have given players long contracts and others not so long. We have plenty of players currently on short contracts such as Taylor and Burke. Why aren't these and others on five year deals if his contracts are designed in the way you say?





Sants enjoyed the services of Graham and Eastmond for the duration of their contracts. I am pretty sure Graham was on a long contract anyway and Saints simply chose not to sell him early and cash in.



This is only to be expected. It's his job.



I don't see why you link how he's handled the Sam situation (poorly) to what he said when he first bought the club except to deflect criticism. It's not black and white that he is all good or all evil. He gets some things right and some things wrong. He's handled the Sam situation badly but that doesn't mean the new CP is a poor idea, nor does the new CP mean we should dismiss how he's handled the Sam situation.





Sorry but the fact other players leave has got nothing to do with the circumstances Sam left under. All good things come to and end and I have been sad to see many a player leave but this is not the normal situation where a player leaves to retire.

I think you should spell check your reply before insulting as you do.

I would see a shrink about your problem with Lenagan