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.

This is a silly argument that completely ignores the very basics of how a market works.

Why because I've highlighted the obvious flaw in your argument?

If you increase or scrap the SC is it anymore likely that Roby would move to a rival or stay at Saints on an even better wage?

It's not really, it's just picked apart your extremely basic and naive 'if clubs can spend more they can buy who they want' whilst convientley forgetting the current clubs stand just as good a chance of keeping them.

no, because it is utterly, utterly idiotic.

If Roby is to move, someone needs to offer him a package which is attractive enough for him to reject any improved offer Saints may offer him. If nobody does that he wont move, whether we have a cap or not. It is pretty obvious, in fact its pretty much self-evident, that it is easier for a club to make an offer to Roby which is attractive for him to reject any improved Saints offer if that club is not restricted by a salary cap.

it is hilarious that you actually think that.

I want to buy a car. The person who owns the car might not necessarily want to sell it. There may be other buyers.

In one scenario I am limited to only spending 5k on cars.

In the other scenario i can spend whatever i deem correct on cars.

Which of those scenarios am i most likely to successfully complete the purchase of that car?

What an utterly ridiculous comparison to make with regards to player movement in sport.

It isnt, this is just the bit where you know you have lost the argument so just deny everything to hide it.

A market for a good works the same way as a market for a service.

But lets try it your way just to spell it out

I own an RL club, I want to sign James Roby, James Roby may not necessarily want to sign for me, there may be other bidders

In one scenario i am limited by the SC to only spending 1.8m on players including James Roby

in the other scenario i can spend whatever i deem correct on players including James Roby

In which of those scenarios am i more likely to successfully complete the signing of James Roby?

And it's pretty obvious Saints could offer a more attractive wage that makes it easier for Roby to turn down rival bids if they weren't restricted by a salary cap.

As pointed out you've not come up with any genuine reasons why an increased/scrapped SC would see more movement between top teams. For the reason that the buying club could offer more it can easily be offset by the players current club can offer more too.

In a way i miss the days pre SL when all the rumours started in the off season and several big names rolled in. Obviously it never worked out for us back then but the prospect/hope of a 150k big name coming in to help us through a wobble in the season was always there, It is all a bit sterile these days in that respect with pretty much just a contract needing sorting, and all happening early on so not much excitement on the transfer market front these days.

In one scenario Saints can only spend £1.8m on players including keeping James Roby

In another scenario they can spend what they want on players including keeping James Roby.

In what scenario are they likely to be able to keep James Roby.

Worked out the flaw in your argument yet? The buying club isn't the only team advantaged by an increased/scrapping of the SC.

Simple question, is it more or less likely that i can tempt James Roby to move from Saints and reject whatever improved offer saints make if i am

A) restricted in what i can offer.

or

B) not restricted in what i can offer

In the hope of providing a distraction, james roby suffers from acute cunninghamitis, a condition that renders the sufferer Unable to move out of suntelens. Even lots more money in Australia did not provide a hope of a cure.

The current Leeds CEO doesn't need a RL imposed salary cap to restrict expenditure on player's wages. It would be interesting to see how he'd react to its removal.

I remember the sport before the cap was adopted, I don't recall a sport in rude health outside or even within Wigan.

It isnt a flaw its an idiotic position which assumes that my valuation of James Roby isnt significantly higher than saints and forgets that differing valuations are the basis of all markets for anything, ever.