What is preventing this?

I cannot recall hardly any SL players moving from one Top SL club to another in the last decade.

By Top SL clubs, I mean player movements between Leeds, Wigan and St Helens throughout the last decade, and including Bradford and then Warrington (who replaced them).

Peacock from Bradford to Leeds in 2005 is the last one I can recall. Mickey Higham from St Helens to Wigan around the same time. Martin Gleeson's move from Warrington to Wigan in 2009 perhaps, though Warrington weren't Top SL club material at that stage.

Yet in comparison, player movements between the rest of the WBSLR clubs is a regular occurrence as a constant stream of players flit from one WBSLR club to another with ease.

I suspect you know the answer to this, which is the same answer to why players don't tend to move between the top 4 clubs in football, or between Real Madrid and Barcelona - not wanting to give up your best players to rivals giving them a direct competitive advantage. Similarly, those clubs on the same level will be unwilling to take on players from your club that you consider expendable, because if they're not good enough for one club they're not good enough for another (occasional exceptions like Ben Cross actually prove the rule).

Wigan players seem to head to RU or NRL. Saints only real quality in Eastmond and Graham went similar. Leeds managed to keep their squad together until retirements hit (Buderus and Eastwood returned back to NRL) and Warrington had players through to retirement too like Briers, Morley, Hodgson.

So a number of reasons with RU/NRL being one, I also think clubs (Leeds in particular) have become better at keeping squads together compared to 10 years ago. The 2004 GF back line mostly went to pastures new for more money within a couple of seasons (Mathers, Calderwood, Walker, Bai) whereas the 2012 GF back line is still intact (Hardaker, Hall, Watkins) or improved (Briscoe over BJB and addition of Moon)

the obvious answer is the salary cap has effectively killed the market for top players, the restrictions on spending mean the opportunity cost of spending a significant amount more on a player than your rivals is just too high.

it is a consequence of a cap that the top is compressed and that is what we are seeing, creating a limited differential in salaries at the top, removing the main driver of that market.

Did Petr Cech, Danny Welbeck, Robin Van Persie, Juan Mata, Raheem Sterling, Samir Nasri, Bacary Sagna, Gael Clichy, James Milner and Kolo Toure tell you to say that?

The lack of player movement at Top SL clubs in particular is one reason among many why the sport has little to no media profile. There's simply nothing newsworthy taking place. Nothing to talk about. All the players at the Top SL clubs remain stuck in a salary-capped comfort zone of unchallenged mediocrity where they stay put, or retire to play for a WBSLR club (or several in quick succession) once their form starts to fade and/or they can no longer command a first team spot.

The sport has little media profile for a number of reasons. The lack of player movements between top clubs is a only a small factor in that and if you are discussing the poor media profile it's hardly worth mentioning.

Now this is more pertinent.

Puts a whole new perspective on the notion of assumed player loyalty to one SL club.

However, wasn't it Sinfield who said... [i"Every player in our squad could probably earn more money with another club. But they prefer to sacrifice a few extra quid in their back pocket to share special memories. And playing at a place like Old Trafford on a night like this makes it all worthwhile"[/i.

I don't believe a stagnant market for players at the top end of SL is healthy for the game. In fact, I'd argue that it is as tragic as it is tedious.

You might wish to check out the amount of media attention surrounding other sports in regard to player transfers (along with speculation about player transfers) before dismissing it all as a small factor. In fact soccer goes out of its way to promote such activity with several "deadline day" orgasms during a season.

What have we got?

Jordan Tansey signs (on loan) to his umpteenth WBSLR club!

i think Sinfield explains it in that quote. Yeah, there are players who could earn a few extra quid, but thats all they would earn, a couple of extra quid. Amounts that would probably be made back with win bonuses and prize money.

And lets not pretend this is a bug in the system, its a feature deliberately built in and codified through long service and development exemptions and now the marquee allowance costing less for a developed player than a new one

I think you are deluded if you think a few top players moving between saints wigan and leeds would have a big impact on media attention. Unless you think a 1 paragraph article hidden away on the BBC website is good. Making the comparison with football is laughable, twitter entries from top players generate media attention in football. FRootball is big business, anything related to it will generate big media attention, it doesn't mean a few poxy transfer for RL will. Listen, England could win the world cup in australia, and when the new super league season there would still be the usual little to no media coverage.

a 1 paragraph article is better than nothing.

You complain there is little to no media coverage, what really do we give the media to cover?

I agree with the quote. Sinfield nails it IMO. That quote has been misinterpreted by others as supreme loyalty to club and team mates over money, particularly in the case of Leeds. That's not quite the whole story. It's got just as much to do with the lack of opportunity for top players to increase their salary at another SL club.

And yes, it is all a fix. A loaded dice, so to speak.

The deluded are those who know nothing about the game prior to SL.

That'd include you then.

RL has never had great media coverage but it's never been as desolate as it is right now.

Even during the so-called grim times of the 70's and 80's, national media coverage of the game was way beyond what it gets now.

Super League and the clubs seem to think that the media ought to be queueing up to provide the game with coverage and cries foul when it gets ignored. Yet, as Smokey has pointed out, the game provides next to nothing for the media to get interested in.

Transfers of big name players from big club to big club generates newsworthy headlines. We cannot even generate that kind of attention and haven't done so for over a decade at least. Super League is an absolute basket case.

Soccer, in spite of its huge media profile, still goes out of its way to encourage more media coverage. It doesn't sit on its backside waiting for things to happen and then start crying when it is ignored.

RL needs to generate publicity. It ain't going to generate itself.

Has it? Or are you and Smokey just interpreting it the way your argument sees fit yourself without any evidence to support that your view of his comments holds any more weight than others interpretation.

As another side angle to players staying at clubs (particularly Leeds) you can't ignore how clubs are making a much better effort in setting players up for careers post RL and thus perhaps lessening the desire to move away and make a bit more more money whilst they can because a post RL career isn't the narrow tunnel it once was.

Of all the ridiculous things you've said on this forum your calculation of Liverpool as a top 4 club has to take the prize.

The supportive evidence is what Smokey said.

What other reasons are there for lack of player movement between Top SL clubs during the last decade in particular?

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Whether you like it or not, Liverpool are still regarded as a top club and a potential threat. A few Liverpool transfer inclusions does not alter the fact that there have been plenty of transfers in the Premier League between other top clubs, and I only listed the one's I could remember during the past few years. I'm sure there will be more from the past decade.

Soccer does not in any way, shape or form imitate Super League for a total lack of player movement between the top clubs.

Feel free to get back in your box if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion.

No, you are wrong here. Your argument doesnt work.

If post career options are an important factor, and clubs are making more of an effort there (particularly Leeds) then we would see one of two things. either A) some clubs (like Leeds according to you) are better at it and that would act as a pull factor so we would see transfers of these players from the other clubs to Leeds, or B) these clubs are offering roughly the similar in this regard and as such it ceases to be a pull factor because you will receive the same benefit wherever you are.

Either way your theory cannot be a significant reason for there being almost no moves between those clubs.

It isn't really. He as usual is blaming anything he can on the SC.

If the cap was increase would we see more top players move between the top teams.....or the top teams have more money to keep their current players?

If we got rid of it all together then their's nothing to suggest player movement between Leeds, Wigan, Saints would increase, just that they'd pick of the best of "the rest" so to speak.

He mentions about how winning bonuses and prize money makes up the "few extra quid" the players turned down but considering the argument is about moving to other successful teams then those bonuses would still be there if they were moving to the certain teams we are talking about.

Would they? our bonuses will have been higher than other clubs over the past decade simply because we have been far more successful. And my point wasnt that bonuses and prize money would definitely cover every penny turned down, more that the differential between what a player gets at Leeds and what the cap means the other clubs can offer is, in the scheme of things, inconsequential.

Also why would you assume that Leeds, Wigan et al wouldnt spend their money on the better players their rivals have and would instead choose to spend their additional space on inferior players? If Leeds could afford James Roby why are they going to go sign Scott Moore?

Yes and that's only something a player can know in hindsight. At the end of 2010 if a player had the chance of Leeds or Saints he doesn't at that time know we'll win 3 of the next 5 GF's and a couple of CC's and Saints just 1 GF so it's redundant saying in hindsight we've won more. For all they knew it could've been the other way round.



Why wouldn't Saints use their additional space to pay Roby more?

The SC is the single most important reason why there is no player movement between the top clubs involving the top players. The SC defines the player market and places restrictions upon it.

If you wish to wax lyrical about player loyalty, then go for it. I would argue that if it weren't for the restrictive SC on the player market, a player like Sinfield would have found it difficult to turn down say, an extra 100K a season to play for Warrington under Tony Smith. Due to the SC, no such opportunity existed as "a few extra quid" just doesn't hack it. May as well stay put.


The top teams do not have a problem keeping their current players. They don't require a higher salary cap to do that. It is the salary cap and other structural, cap-related incentives which is causing the current stagnation of the competition, and particularly so in terms of lack of player transfer movements. This situation does not lend itself to generating media attention.


If the cap was scrapped and Moran at Warrington offered Leeds a shedload of money for Watkins or Hardaker, you don't think Leeds would take up their offer? Or you think either Watkins or Hardaker would turn down a doubling of their salary if it was offered to them? Really?

The SC is holding back the game.

If the cap was scrapped what's stopping Leeds offering Watkins and Hardaker more money to keep them here and thus still no big name moves between top teams as they are still able to cancel each other out.

And my point wasnt that bonuses and prize money would definitely cover every penny turned down, more that the differential between what a player gets at Leeds and what the cap means the other clubs can offer is, in the scheme of things, inconsequential.

i can only guess you are being deliberately stupid.

Have you finished negotiating all those roundabouts yet?

Top players used to regularly transfer between top teams when there was no SC. Players also were retained by clubs with improved salaries in order to stave off competition for their signatures.

Since the introduction of the SC alongside its additional conditions, the market for players has been regulated (fixed) to such a degree that top players no longer transfer from one top club to another top club.