all the players do it. Tallis used to be on 1million+ at Brisbane and so on. The club can offer salaries and have the sponsorships lined up as they are influencial in Aus due to their size and popularity. Over here we are becoming smaller and smaller as the cap hasnt moved with inflation thus making the game smaller and smaller commercially.

Four fairly basic questions that seem to get ignored when the "salary cap has killed off our game" argument is brought upcurrent players more make them better players (which is what would happen with a higher cap)
2) What is the reason for the cap increase? If it is to compete with Union - how will that be possible? (as an example - Northampton Saints recent financial year turnover was £12m, I think Wigan's is a fair way short of £5m from memory.) If it is to compete with football, then how do you think an incremental increase in the RL salary cap will make any difference?
3) How will the increased cap be funded?
4) Why, immediately before the cap "killed off our game", had we just lost 49-6 at home to a NZ team in the 2000 World Cup (who went on to get rinsed 40-12 in the final by Oz).

the cap has done this as the ruling has been changed. Used to be 50% or 1.8 million whichever was the smallest. They got rid of the 50% and kept the 1.8 million so the smaller clubs could spend the same as clubs earning twice as much. If they said its 50% of turnover the clubs who work hard to market the clubs would be rewarded for being able to spend the money they had generated instead of beign held back to the same as Salford and Quins.

You caould attract players instead of having them poached of you by RU or the NRL and also attract other athletes who chose other sports due to them paying far more than RL.

Its killing the game nationally aswell as internationally. You cannot use one team won but then another team did that. We lost to quins this year but beat Hull home and away, must mean Quins are better than hull.....

I wonder if Craig Bellamy and his Storm players would agree that the salary cap is just for show in Oz?

In your other post you say how will the cap make them better. The last 2 teams in the NRL that breached were the Bulldogs and the storm and at the time they were the top teams. So it shows by paying more you can achieve more.

Its for show as if you take the earnings of every player what they make a year and add them together it would shatter the cap.

What ultimately was there gain? They disgraced themselves by cheating and brought the game into disrepute. they didn't keep their "achievements" their supporters are ridiculed by other fans, plus losing points in the league certaily did not make them better. They got what they deserved.

Leaving aside your inside info on Big Gord, how fast are the agents moving in relation to inflation, As a comparison I would imagine the "Agents" earn more Pro-rata today than the players of 1960s era.
Prudence should be applied to the finances of our clubs before other "winding up" orders are issued.

Its not inside info it was in the news, saying someone earns more than someone 50 years ago is madness, the game wasnt professional then and was 50 years ago.

The Clue is "Pro-rata"

Yes I used to read "Billys Weekly Liar" as well

Grandads have passed cheers anyway, Im 32 so maybe a little less p*** taking as your comment doesnt make any sense as Tallis isnt so old. Or did you just want to try and act funny and try and trip me up due to you being far older.

Sorry about your grandad, and I apologise if I've offended you, I certainly did not intend to do that. "Billys Weekkly Liar" was a send up "paper" that was sold mainly around Blackpool many years ago, hence my reference to it.

The days of rugby leauge being able to compete with union(with or without a cap)are unfortunatley long gone
Union offers players a bigger national profile,more money from tv revenue and most importantly the prospect of a competitive european and worldwide competition,imo leauge is far better to watch but it looks like were in the minority