I fail to see how this ruling brings up the standard of rugby league.



They turned it around because they had the history, staff and cash, to (cheat) to do so. If Wigan had been bottom half of the table for the previous 15 seasons and won nothing- do you think their ability to "turn it around" would be the same?
"Failure to compete" is an easy phrase to come up with when you've not had to fight to become competitive for years. How much easier is it for Wigan to secure sponsorship money, Wigan to secure players, wigan to secure the best coaching staff, wigan to secure the best marketing staff, Wigan to secure the best back room staff, Wigan to entice the best youngsters to their club and keep them than those you are accusing of "failing to compete" It's not a level playing field so it's not "failure to compete" it's failure to have the same benefits as others in order to compete!!!
If the RFL had gone ahead with their draft system it may have been different.

What draft system would that be?

Draft system? Are you joking?

That's just an easy option for those clubs that can't be bothered to do anything to just get another free ride.

I do find it amusing and slightly ironic that opposition fans litter this board with comments like 'arrogant' or say that we think we are entitled to success . Then at the same time you get posts like the above stating they should have the same off the field benefits as everyone else!!!! Well guess what you aren't entitled to them . We have invested money and effort to get them and in turn it's brought success.

Why should anyone just be given players or facilites? Why should any club have the right to complain that Wigan is pushing the envelope with top draw facilities for it's staff?

You are so wrong it's laughable. The top teams "preventing others from competing with them"

The crap clubs are preventing themselves. If Uncle Ken put his hand in his pocket and splashed out on Sam Burgess, would you be so sympathetic to the crappy West Yorkshire junk who voted against the Marquee rule? Would you F.

You're talking about losing revenue across the game. What revenue?

The thing is teams had an opportunity to develop under the franchise system and they squandered it!

Ask Catalan or Widnes if the franchise system was a failure. They developed strong sides via the execution of a long term plan.

Some clubs in SL can't even plan from week to week! Instead of looking at internal failures they turn into green eyed monsters who love to point the finger of blame at anyone apart from themselves.

If Widnes can come from the championship and over a short space of time firmly cement themselves in the league what does that say of those who have wasted 10 years in the top flight? If a side like Catalan can establish themselves when facing all the obstacles in the world what does that say about teams like Wakey?

The current system only serves to stop the big sides rightly pushing ahead. The only benefit it provides is to mask over the inadequacies of those running the sides who simply don't want to do anything. ATEOTD why would they? Everything is given to them on a plate.

Diddums.

Whilst you are espousing 'simple capitalism', you do realise that without checks and balances (like a salary cap) such a system leads to monopoly don't you? I say again-

Would you be happy playing a round robin against Saints and Leeds ad infinitum?

Even that bastion of traditional capitalism the Premier League tried to have a geographical ban on recruiting youngsters so that a club could only recruit within a 25 mile radius. Even they realised the inherent unfairness of allowance the Man Utds and Chelsea's to do as they please.

It may well lead to a monopoly where only a handful of clubs win the top prize. Oh, wait a minute..!

I haven't advocated removal of checks and balances such as the salary cap, so I'm not sure why you've directed that question at me. Your scenario of round robin games with only Saints and Leeds is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of the marquee player rule.

Interesting to note that Nigel Wood was thrilled the rule got passed and the RFL have wanted it implemented for some time!

You're talking as if being a "big club" is a permanent thing. Little clubs can become big, and vice versa, given the right situation, it's by no means a closed shop - just look at league tables over, say, 10 year gaps, to see once small clubs like wire and hudds becoming big and once big clubs like Bradford collapsing.

I think that's a very good point. And little clubs can only become big clubs if they still exist. Therefore a case against the free market!!!

We already do. Despite the odd self inflicted disaster when it gets to the business end it is the same suspects competing for the trophies. The salary cap set at the level it is has done nothing to alter that.

Rugby League doesn't exist in isolation and yet has basically had a wage freeze for well over a decade.

That is incompatible with the concept of professional sport because as we have seen once a sport gets some money behind it as RL in OZ has and RU here, players wages take off leaving our players behind The players in the NRL and RU quite rightly expect a fair share of the pie.

Pro-cappers here rarely mention the players livelihoods. The seen to think because Cas and Wakey can't afford a cap bigger than what it is, it is OK for all the players at every club to have their wages held down. Why?

I think the salary cap in the UK is self defeating myself. Here in the UK it is in effect a lowest common denominator. It is set too low so as to accommodate the poorest clubs and it means clubs who could afford to pay the players more can't so there is always a chance the best players will leave but the poorest clubs remain the poorest clubs and least likely to win a trophy. It serves no useful purpose and who knows how many young players don't even bother trying to make a career out of it given the wages for the average player are effectively low.

In Australia it is not a lowest common denominator at all. It is high enough so the players can earn high salaries yet it will prevent one club outspending another.

With the Sky deal all our clubs now have the full £1.8m salary cap paid. They got about £1.1m before IIRC so why not increase the cap to £2.5m? The clubs still have to find the same as they used to, £0.7m. If they can't do that they really have no place in a professional league.

HKR look a better prospect these days not because of the salary cap but because they have been given the money to pay right up to it and they are spending it IMO. Why other clubs still don't want things like the marquee player or the cap raised when they have also just been handed £1.8m on a plate I really don't know.

Sooner or later the cap will have to go up not just by minor tinkering by things like the marquee player rule. It can't stay as it is and RL protect itself never mind compete with the NRL and RU.

For it to go up we need more money in the sport or at least going to the top clubs. The Aussie clubs don't earn their income as such, most of it comes from the TV rights and they don't divide it between 26 clubs either. We should do the same. The SL clubs should share the TV money (cap goes up to £3.2m then I believe) and we should give up on the false idea we can have a 26 team pro league. We can't. We can't afford it.

The tone of debate on here from many posters (though not necessarily yourself) has been - To hell with the poorer clubs we can do without them, we are being held back by them etc.

Some have even said they don't care if the smaller clubs go out of business they couldn't care less.

We've been here before. I'm not going to rehash this debate. It feels a bit like 'Groundhog Day'