Quote: soss "I didnt say that administration did have a bareing on the cap. What I said was you came out in 2007. It doesnt matter where the money is spent for the books its the fact is was spent and posted as a loss (has to come from somewhere). I don't want to get into this side of it as I dont know your accounts other than what I have read on the forum.
The point I was making is that the cap did not come in to rein Widnes back it was brought in to stop clubs overspending and going into administration. No team can use the salary cap as an excuse for their performance as we ALL work to the same capping system which is audited by the RFL.'"
Would a cap of 400k not still do this, how about 500k?
It was lowered because of licensing and the fact that winning the league means less. It was to increase competitiveness. In the past the teams with the most money kept a full-time squad and won the league easily. This wasn't necessary in the Championship.
The salary cap is an excuse for performance because the league is reduced to a competition of who can get the most out of 300k. In theory Leeds, Wigan or Brisbane would stand the same chance of winning the Championship as Batley.
We have the most fans and the most money. How exactly are we supposed to show this superiority when we are only allowed to spend the same as all the other clubs? It also means nothing about how clubs will do in Super League as the cap goes up by so much.
The fact is that if they scrapped the cap tomorrow there would be some clubs who would still be spending 300k, however Widnes could spend a lot more and very probably would. Those clubs are allowed to spend the maximum that they can but Widnes aren't. Hardly fair.
The fact also remains that we never had P&R with a cap like it is now. So it means nothing who finishes top and whether they should be in Super League.
