He says he's not heading to Hull.

Obviously.

Denied the speculation.

thats good news then!

OK, I'll withdraw the (probably uncalled-for anyway) "fool" allegation; your reply shows you are clearly no fool. But, being nobody's fool, you will surely acknowledge how your earlier statements came across as both patronising and arrogant?

Your latest post is far less antagonistic (IMHO), and indeed is making serious headway on "irrefutable".

What do I want? Some honesty. IMO the salary cap is has easy potential for not creating a level playing field at all. Just like tax, the wealthiest will always have opportunities to avoid it. And more than a few of such ways, in both cases, are actually perfectly permissable - "unconnected" third party-paid image rights being a good example.

I have said before that, if I was a wealthy club owner, I am satisfied I could drive coach and horses through the cap. Only those involved will know if they are themselves doing what they have the opportunity to do. I suggest that the comparative quality differences between the squads of clubs supposedly spending the same cap could be taken as an indication that some clubs are indeed taking advantage of such opportunities? But, in the absence of proof (which, if it IS going on, you'd struggle to find anyway) this can only ever be speculation.

What really pìsses me off though is when Bulls fans - let alone outsiders - slag the club and the board off for seemingly paying far too much for our squad relative to those of the monied clubs. Because neither they nor I can be sure that players in the game are not also receiving potentially significant income from supposedly "unconnected" sources; and that some such sources may be more "unconnected" than others. And without some more disclosure, if it IS going on we'll never know.

I'd rather know that club A was playing much better than my club because it was able to arrange for its playing staff to receive much more income than mine, than wonder why the hell my club seems unable to recruit to anything like the level that club A has when we are both supposedly spending the same salary cap. If, of course, that should indeed be the case. But, as it stands, we'll never know so speculation will continue to run riot.

Adey, you have pointed out obvious ways around the cap. I am still no clearer whether it happens or not. Is it legal? What is your alternative within the resource restrictions of the RFL?

In the 10 years prior to the cap, in the period of professionalism only Wigan, Saints & Bradford won the league. Since the cap Wigan, Saints, Bradford, Leeds & Wire have won the league. As you said, you can add Hudds, Hull & Cats to that list as possible candidates. It would seem to demonstrate that, despite its shortcomings, it is the least worse option.

When did Wire win the league?



I think the increased competitiveness is more down to an increased number of clubs getting richer (thanks to big money backers) and being more professional in how they operate. I think it's probably just a coincidence that the cap has been in operation in that time. In fact only one more club has won the league after the cap came in and they've done that 4 times!

I was under the impression they won it last year (the hub cap as opposed to the GF, which is arguably a better indication of team strength than the play-offs).

With those sort of views, we'd love you over on the Wire forum, Tigertot....

Your impression does a fine impression of a delusion.

We didn't win the GF last year, so does that mean we won the league too?

Yeah! We're the champions!

Even Moran couldn't afford to match what they pay me to educate this riff raff.

Warrington topped the league, 'won' the league leaders shield......Leeds won the end of season play off that decides the champions.

There is a difference between league winners and champions nowadays....



Oh e, I've just opened myself to another 4 pages of discussion and ridicule with you lot, haven't I??...

Steady, you might confuse them.

Monday 4th June Bradford vs Castleford