These days it's less about Leeds and more about the game generally for me. My current "issue" is that I don't see that the game is improving at anything like the rate that "humpty dumpty and wiggy" on Sky would have you believe. I feel that the standard at the very top of the league game is falling and people are cheering this because it means that other teams don't have to work as hard and play as well to beat Leeds and Saints.

How can the peak level of performance diminishing be good for the game. If you want a game where everyone fumbles around in mediocrity, knock yourself out. I'd prefer to see one where the league creates a level of skill and intensity required for GB/England to consistently perform at a level which is good enough to beat Australia or NZ, and I don't mean in one token game a series.

No it's not "good for the game" but should those two teams "dumb down" so everyone else can catch up?

The only way to really improve is for others to get to the levels of performance that Leeds and Saints have set in recent years. Anything else is a false dawn.

IMO Lower attendances are due to the reduced south stand capacity and the recession.

With regards to Saturday's game, the weather played a huge part and with it being on sky, also being on a Saturday night which is not a usual night for home games for Leeds. It has nothing to do with Leeds not dominating as they have done. Ticket pricing is a tad pricey in the current economic climate, coupled with any bad weather and the game being televised will have an effect on any clubs attendance.

Not at all. How many games would we have been able to push capacity for the ground this season if there weren't a reduced capacity?

I didn't go, I went to watch Toulouse play at Featherstone.

Your point applies to an extent, but I think it's more to do with the fact that we don't seem to be able to string a decent move together. We rely more on individual pieces of skill these days, rather than well-crafted set plays.

But yeah, to be playing under the cap all season really is bemusing.

Why is it so bemusing ?

When was the last time we dropped out of the top four in the league table ?

Why spend money that isn't required when you can achieve your goals (remind me again who has won the Grand Final these past two years) on a reduced budget ?

Its business, plain and simple, the challenge is not in spending every last penny in the salary cap, any fool can do that - its in maintaining your success on the lowest possible overhead, thats the point at which your sports club becomes a viable business.

That's partly correct, however what you fail to mention is that in any business you reinvest in order to maintain improvement especialy in periods of success, have Leeds done that?

Additionally dont underestimate what commercial value a big name player brings to a business (example Real Madrid - Beckham).

We do both already.

The team we have is the result of previous seasons investments, and we all know that in November there will be news of a "big" signing just before the season ticket prices are announced, its as certain as christmas.

It's bemusing because it means we're not playing as well as we can.

Not playing as well as we can means it isn't as attractive to the spectators (evidenced by our lower attendances this season), corporates, sponsors etc.

And don't forget, we're out of the cup. One of our goals at the beginning of the season was to win the cup, so we're clearly not achieving our goals.

You're right - it is a business. Which is why it's important to increase revenue by drawing the crowds, and also to stay in relatively lucrative competitions like the Challenge Cup.

How does spending up to your cap limit mean you'll play better?

For the last two years Wigan have most likely had a salary spend equal to or more than that of Leeds - remind me again how far that got them both on the field and in terms of increasing crowds?

Wigan and Leeds are two completely different clubs with different players. To compare the two is pointless.

In the case of Leeds, spending up to cap would mean more players. This would benefit the club in two ways. Firstly, players could be rotated and rested, ensuring we get the best out of them for as long as possible. Secondly, it allows the coach to drop players if they're not playing well and replace them with people who are eager to prove their place.

This worked particularly well in 2004. Do you remember 2004?

Thats only relevant if these"signings" are the right people on the right money.
GH has consistently been trying to improve the squad i.e. Pritchard,Soliola,Millard,Eastwood etc the reasons these haven't come off are not imo the clubs fault.
Whats the point in signing players to top up yer squad if the deals and players aren't right for the club???????

Duncan that is the what the salary cap does - it produces a more even more mediocre competition. It has happened in Australia and it is happening here. Rather than forcing teams to improve their team, youth development, infrastructure, marketing etc it simply allows the poorer sides to wait for the better sides to come back to them.

Add to that the fact the cap has not moved in 10+ years what have you got poorer squads - the teams that will prosper are those that can develop a good crop of young players who are able to function at the elite level for a fraction of their very average NRL developed team mates - Saints look to be in the best position with their current crop of youngsters.

On the positive it could give a number of Bristish youngsters the opportunity to develop at the elite level - every cloud!!!!

Of course it would only make sense if the players were right.

But I can't believe that there aren't any players in the world of rugby league that wouldn't have improved our squad.

I do, I remember Leeds had a raft of young players in the first team squad, many of whom were on their first professional contracts still.

I also remember that the cap was £200k higher five years ago.

Why is comparing what two clubs of similar size have done with their respective playing budgets and their contrasting results pointless?

I also remember us signing Ali mid-season that year, so must have played at least part of that season under the cap.

What is obvious is that the club have identified and tried to sign who they deem suitable for the right price this hasn't happened for reasons beyond the clubs control.

The point is that we had lots of bodies, meaning we could rest/drop players. This played a major part in our success.



I could use Saints instead of Wigan and point them out as an example of how spending all your cap results in success. You could pick whichever club suits your viewpoint. That's why it's pointless.

Exactly - a signing mid-season this year would have been good for us I'm sure.

IIRC the signing was only possible because in his 1st half season here we used the CC bonus money to get him so i don't think the "cap space" was all that big.

So really your point about spending up to the cap is pointless as you've come up with two examples that completely contradict each other ?

The way I look at it is that Leeds would have had a better squad if they had spent their full allocation that the cap permits this season.

Had they done so, results and performances may have been better than they have been so far. They may have retained the WCC, they may have been playing in a Challenge Cup semi final next weekend and they may have been sat four points clear on the table in good shape to defend their championship.

Were Leeds at full cap spend none of these unknowns would be possible we'd simply be where we are now. No longer WCC holders, out of the Challenge Cup at the first hurdle, sat in second on the competition table and mounting a regular version of the great escape on matchdays.

They way I look at it a settled squad allowed us to retain the Lazenby Cup this year and guarantee us a second chance in the end of season play-offs. Of course the failure to recapture the Tetley's Festive Challenge was a set back, but I'm sure we can put that right next season.

The way I see it at the start of the season there are four objectives for the reigning champion team:

1) The SL Title
2) The Challenge Cup
3) The World Club Championship
4) The League Leaders Shield

In the off season the club will seek to assemble a squad (within the limits of salary cap and quotas) to achieve as many of the objectives as is humanly possible.

So far the reigning champions have recorded two fails with two targets still possibilities.