No. I think that if Leeds make a profit it shouldn't be on the back of forming a cartel to restrict the earnings of players.

It's not difficult to turn a profit by exploiting workers. Nor something you should be particularly proud of.

I'm more than comfortable with Leeds making a profit once a player is allowed to sell his skills for their open market value.

I agree with Smokey, although not sure if his argument his going too far or not. Is he asking for the cap to be abolished? that I dissagree with. Is he asking for the cap to be increased sufficiently? If so he is absolutely correct.

Out of curiosity, what purpose do you want the cap to serve?

I spent last week in India, your definition of exploiting workers and mine are very different.
Frankly the way some of the Leeds team have been playing I would be asking them to take a pay cut.

I think the cap should absolutely be abolished. It's a sledgehammer trying to smash a nut but repeatedly missing and hitting ourselves and those around us in the face.

There are restrictions on squad make up and building and other ways we can push clubs in to doing what we need them to do.

There being a spectrum of exploitation is not a difficult concept.

Nor does there been extreme examples mitigate others.

Indentured servitude I'm the middle east isn't acceptable because it doesn't match the horror of the Atlantic slave trade.

Then don't make dumb suggestions that professional rugby players are being exploited because the company that employs them makes a small profit.

Out of interest, you've talked about market value a lot, what is your definition of market value. Just out of interest?

it is a dumb suggestion (or more likely deliberately disingenuous) for you to say my issue is with Leeds making a profit. I have no issue with Leeds making a profit, whether that profit be £1, £1m, or £1b a year. My issue is with Leeds colluding with their competitors to artificially depress wages so they can make a profit off the back of not paying players their worth.

Market value is whatever someone is willing to pay. Something that isnt allowed to happen in RL because of the aforementioned collusion.

I reckon you don't have to look too far to find more convincing examples of exploitation than being rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle for merely playing rugby. Put it this way, I won't lose much sleep over it.

Quote ="Clearwing"I reckon you don't have to look too far to find more convincing examples of exploitation than being rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle for merely playing rugby. Put it this way, I won't lose much sleep over it.'" Sadly many explayers, like Ian Knott for instance, losing sleep is the least of their worries. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32231774 www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/loc ... s-1-682147

Quote ="Clearwing"I reckon you don't have to look too far to find more convincing examples of exploitation than being rewarded with a comfortable lifestyle for merely playing rugby. Put it this way, I won't lose much sleep over it.'" Sadly many explayers, like Ian Knott for instance, losing sleep is the least of their worries. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32231774 www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/loc ... s-1-682147

Willing or able to pay? Most companies who actually exist in the real world have to consider both.
You say you have no problem with Leeds making a profit, how are they going to do that if suddenly the wage bill doubles?
The truth you don't seem to grasp is that there is only so much money in the sport of RL, there's nobody creaming off millions at the players expense, there is simply only so much money available.
If, as you say repeatedly, the club chairmen have all "colluded" (which means decided in secret) to keep players salaries down then by your own definition of "market value" the people who release funds to buy players have, by colluding, already decided what they are prepared to pay. The players are then already getting their market value.

the risk and the reward lie with Paul Caddick. So that is his problem. If he chooses to pay players double its his problem. He can always choose not to pay those wages.

except of course the roughly £1m Paul Caddick gets a year along with an appreciating real estate asset .

It was decided in secret. Where you or I allowed in to the vote to put in place or renew it? Are the minutes of the yearly meeting publicly available? are even the players invited to observe never mind participate in that decision making?

If players were getting their market value then there A) wouldnt be such need for that collusion and B) no punishment nor threat of punishment for breaking the SC.

The fact is that we have a club in the process of being investigated for a salary cap infraction with the threat of penalty. That very fact means we do not and cannot pay players their market value.

Really? You weren't at the meeting? I was.

I see the cap much like I see laws to make people do things that are obviously in their own interest. Because there are f***wits who would ride a motorbike without a crash helmet, even though when they inevitably fall off they will most likely smash their skull to pieces.
The Market has decided what players are worth and the cap tries to protect the dimwits who come along into sport from doing something stupid, not only inevitably bankrupting themselves, but also f******g things up for everyone else in the process.

I think I've made my point. The dumbness of your last post suggests you have run out of anything resembling sense.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Sadly many explayers, like Ian Knott for instance, losing sleep is the least of their worries. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32231774 www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/loc ... s-1-682147'" I'm not trying to be a smart here but I genuinely can't spot the point you're trying to make.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Sadly many explayers, like Ian Knott for instance, losing sleep is the least of their worries. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32231774 www.leighobserver.co.uk/news/loc ... s-1-682147'" I'm not trying to be a smart here but I genuinely can't spot the point you're trying to make.

that a group of very rich men, have convinced you that it is up to their workers to earn less, to protect these very rich businessmen from themselves and ensure they stay very rich is crazy.

that players dont earn that much and can find themselves cast aside at 35 years old with a body battered and bruised and struggling to make ends meet. A position Messrs Lenegan, Caddick, McManus, Moran, Pearson, Koukash and Hudgell are unlikely to find themselves.

Rather than a salary cap that limits the total wages a club can pay, I would be interested to see something like the following.
You are allowed 5 players earning over £100k, a further 5 players earning over £80k, a further 5 players earning over £60k and a further 5 players earning over £40k.

No one team would be able to sign all the best players, which should keep the league competitive, but it wouldn't limit what clubs can pay young players such as Lilly, or stop players achieving a wage that is their market value.

It's early days yet but if Leeds find themselves consigned to a similar league position next season and restricted from doing anything about it by the salary cap, the number of fans arguing for a scrapping of that salary cap will increase tenfold.

The problem with that is that it still allows clubs to spend what they can't afford. Increase the revenues at clubs and the sport as a whole first before we allow clubs to spend more on players and engage in the kind of batsh|ttedry that nearly killed the game 20+ years ago.

And right on cue, George Osborne has turned up.

you are not only still putting the onus on players to protect rich men from themselves, but even on a technical level, the SC bares no relation to affordability.

The same successful purpose it serves in the NRL, and successfully in other sports. Unfortunately our ground breaking approach stood still whilst we rested on our laurels. 2016 now, and people running our game don't know it.

Increased level of competition? We have more of that now in British RL than at any time in any of our lifetimes. There is more doubt today over any result pre-match than anyone has ever seen.

Fans of rich clubs equate this with the death of the game. Even Salford fans are in on it now. There's nothing like hope for the downtrodden to feed the bitter resentment of the underclasses in their blackened hearts. I understand it is rewarding mediocrity, and not in any way a mechanism for increasing the level of interest through the hope that comes from a more even distribution of wins. So the same people make the same arguments in the same way that they made twenty years ago. And then remind everyone that it's 2016.

Even if Leeds make a million a year profit (I use that term advisedly as its a slippery sod itself), that means they'd need to save it for years to pay for major redevelopment of the stadium.

An increase in the cap would mean nothing for most SL teams, who are kept alive purely by the largesse of their owners. It would also in large part go straight into the hands of the existing crop of SL players. If the cap is holding everyone back, why hasn't every SL side got a "marquee" player?

TBH the naivety about the cap is incredible. It can't stop teams going bust but its far better protection than none at all. The idea that its some kind of capitalist conspiracy to keep cigar chewing suits in champers is mind-boggling. Most club owners have to support their clubs every year, not the other way round.

Increased level of competition is not what we have, it us a dumbed down competition of poor quality resulting in complacent attitudes and players regressing. That is not what the NRL or other sports have with a cap, and that is because a cap can still be in place for the good of the sport without it restricting the ability to have quality. This level competition argument is absolute rubbish, if you wanted that then you could go watch amateur rugby and pay a lot less. At least then you accept the quality is not what you are paying for.