To say all Super Leagues fans got what we expected in Oz/Kiwi land is an understatement, We are light years behind in terms of being able to compete at International level.
What has gone wrong with our game when we are in danger of collecting the wooden spoon (heaven forbid)
I am reading an exellent RL book by Robert Gate "Saints V Wigan Derby Matches" a really good read (I'm sure there's some pictures of Rogues).
I would like to refer to 2 games played on April 20th and April 28th 1962, please note the teams on both occasions.
April 20th at KR. attendance 29,615
SAINTS K Northey, Voll, A Briers, A Rhodes, M Sullivan, A Murphy, W Smith, F Leyland, R Dagnall, C Watson, R French, R Huddart, W Major.
WIGAN F Griffiths, W Boston, E Ashton, A Davies, F Carlton, D Bolton, F Parr, J Barton,
W Sayer, B McTigue, F Collier, N Cherrington, G Lyon.

April 28th at CP. attendancce 32,597.
WIGAN, F Griffiths, W Boston, E Ashton, A Davies, F Carlton, S McLeod, F Parr, F Collier,
W Sayer, B McTigue, N Cherrington, T Woosey, G Lyon.
SAINTS, A Rhodes, Voll, A Briers, K Northey, G Case, K Large, A Murphy, F Leyland, R Dagnall,
C Watson, R French, K Ashcroft, W Major.
Apart from Punchy n Voll, all ( I think born in UK) all British players playing in key positions, Scrum half, stand off, hooker, (I know the positions has evolved, but the problem is in the majority of cases these rolls are now filled by Ozzies/ Kiwis.)
IMHO The Rugby served up by these lads at that time (mostly part-timers at that) was better and more enjoyable for the spectators than now.
By the way can somebody comment on how we did against the Southern Hemisphere during that period.

Correct, Benidorm John.
Those names, yes even the Saints ones, bring back some memories. That's because those teams were full of great players, who, as you said, were mainly British.

BTW, does anyone know if the Alan Briers who played then is related to you-know-who?

A bit closer to them than we are now, maybe, but not by much. We won all 3 games (only 4 teams entered in it - GB, NZ, Aus & France) in the 1960 World Cup (though as GB not England, of course). In '68 we won one game out of 3.

The rugby overall was not better then.
It was unlimited tackles where a team could keep the ball for very long periods and not lose possesion until they knocked on etc.
Players like Billy & Tom V.V. though were far better than any wingman we have in this day and age. Both of course came from Union.
I think the first Aussie team to win a series in the UK was in 1963.

That year (1962) the Lions team that toured Aus/NZ is considered by many to be the best GB side ever assembled, winning the first 2 tests (31-12 in Sydney, 17-10 in Brisbane) and losing 17-18 in the 3rd to a very debatable last minute Aussie try (the NZ part of the tour was less succesful, due mainly to a devastating injury list that left GB struggling to field 13 fit players at one point), the side contained such legends as Boston, Ashton ,McTigue and Bolton from Wigan, Murphy, Sullivan and Huddart from Saints, Fox, Turner and Round from Wakefield, Edgar and Herbert from Workington, all players still talked about today by knowledgable RL fans as 'greats', how many of our current International squad will go on to carry that label ?.

Whilst I respect your opinion, the game was more enjoyable to watch, some of the tries BB n Voll scored were worth the admission fee alone, I know we have TV to contend with now and a lot of money is generated from Sky, but what you have to remember games then were played on a Saturday afternoon indirect competition with Soccer, take a look at the attendances, plus the majority of teams owned there own grounds at that time, remember the Athletic ground, Watersheddings, Fartown, Thrum Hall, as I commented earlier the problem is not the Salary cap, it is how the money is spent. (Crusaders, off shore pension funds, LOL).

I dont think you need to go that far back, when we had Edwards, Offiah, Lee Jackson, Hanley in the team they were for me the best in the world at their positions and there were others in the team who were on parr with the Aussies.

Salary cap has killed off our game as I read about Burgess the other day. he gets a fortune from sponsorships over there, its how they make their money so in effect the salary cap over there is for show.

Sorry to disagree, what Burgess and others earn on top of his salary, ie sponsorship is down to the commercial personna of the individual, it is hardly relevant to the running of the club, but when you get imported Aussies (illegal imigrants at that) sinking their SL club by having Off shore pension funds (allegedly) set up beggars belief, I honestly believe this revelation is just the tip of the iceberg and is bleeding the game of its resources.

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.