Ahhh socialism.

Aren't we currently renting a football stadium because our business model from them days was unsustainable?

NO

It obviously played it's part but it's obvious that if you spend more than you have things will eventually go wrong.

That being said I think it was more misjudgement/ mismanagement from Wigan. We arguably went too far imo. There were decisions taken such as the signing of Offiah when we already had an adequate player in Myers being a prime example of how not to do it.

Having to cover the cost of a collapsing derelict coal mine also had something to do with it.

The basic problem is we are a sport that in general can't afford to pay superstar salaries. The Wigan model in the 90's was based on going to Wembley every year and paying too many players too much unsurprisingly, we eventually went bust as did Bradford who had a similar model.
I support the new rule and in principle support the salary cap however, the current cap is too low and is long overdue a signicant increase.
The sport has always had a marketability issue and fundamentally is significantly underfunded. What we really need is someone at the very top with the skills and the right contacts in the major boardrooms of branded companies to get access to far larger sponsorship deals that are currently available. Whatever happened to the ex Football guy who came in as I think Chairman of SL who was going to help deliver this?
Until this issue is resolved we will always be a very small fish swimming in an ocean of sport.

If clubs chase the dream and go bust in the process, so be it. Wigan - although never technically going bust, unless you believe Saddo - had their financial difficulties but we survived.

Bradford had some pain but they'll come back stronger in years to come with good management. Which I think is what it will all boil down to.

If Salford sign Inglis, Wire sign Cronk, Leeds sign SBW... Good on them.

Capitalism all the way.

I think we missed the boat after the last tv rights it was too watered down if every SL club had got 2.2 million and that was the cap every club would be on the same footing .We could say that every club now is on the same as the money now from tv as I think they get 1.7 million .The cap wants raising to keep the good players in RL and attract other players outside of the game.

The argument that the marquee rule will prevent players defecting to NRL or RU is false. We MAY possibly perhaps keep 2 or 3 players. In total, ( big deal) - but it's more likely we get another batch of Aussies past their origin best coming for a payday.
The NRL are paying a lot more than SL- and they can't prevent the players going to RU....
It's a gimmick- no more. We know how those in control at the RFL love their gimmicks.

There are two different issues to the salary cap - as a way of stopping clubs overspending I'm in favour of the original 50% of income rule, but as a way of increasing competition it hasn't and won't work, and just holds back the clubs with a good financial structure in place (including a good junior system, reducing the need for expensive signings). I like the fact that this new marquee rule distinguishes between home grown players and signings, for that reason.

One of the things always mentioned in this debate is that the clubs with a good system of producing youngsters shouldn't be held back by those who don't produce players. But it's not as simple as that is it?

For example. If you lived in Wakefield say and your son had Wakey, Leeds and Wigan knocking on your door. Who would you advise him to sign for? So the big clubs are usually able to hoover up all the talent to the detriment of the smaller ones.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the above scenario but you can see how the home club, in this instance, through no fault of their own, lose talent on their own doorstep.

GH will not break the bank to sign a marquee player even though the club are the richest in SL
It's more likely going to one of our home grown players IF any of them earn over £100k ?

Too bad we can't afford any of them.

Equally Widnes cas or Wakefield could discover the next Andy Farrell / Kieron Cunningham but due to SOME clubs extra spending power are now even more likely to lose him than they already would be.
Capitalism all the way?

Without a shadow of a doubt.

The best players want to play for the biggest sides imo.

I'm a firm believer that what's best for the big sides is best for the league. ATEOTD it's the big sides that push the envelope, it's the big sides that invest heavily in academics and training facilities. It's sides like Wigan that heavily scout none traditional areas like South Wales.

It might sound harsh but if the CC cup final is on BBC who do you think the casual fan or the first time sports fan would tune in to watch - Wakefield vs Huddersfield or one of the big four playing each other? Likewise who would you tune in to Barcelona vs Madrid or two mid table sides?

Our big sides are our cash cows. Outside of individuals they are our greatest marketing assets imo.