OK, so you think the current Wigan side is as good as the one 10 years ago....







Let's see what happens in the 4 nations. I predict more humiliation for England and the exposing of the myth that player quality in SL is increasing....

So those who think the Cap is counter-productive, what are the alternatives?

50% of turnover? No cap at all?

You mean [ithe same [/ihumiliation we've had for the last 30 years?

As for the current Wigan side - it's certainly fitter, bigger and stronger than 10 years ago. The only thing that's gone is the ball handling skills - which isn't much needed these days in the bash and barge product which has evolved in SL.

Oh Please




Wire pi$$ all over what Wigan can pay



Free market?..
The current recession anyone?

At least previously we could muster a one off victory against the Aussies or give them a real good run for there money. Beating them in Melbourne in the Tri-Nations being a good example.

But at the World Cup we were demolished and couldn't compete. At least in the past we have competed. Look at the Aussie team. Billy Slater, Hayne, Inglis, Falou etc up against Briscoe, Hall, Shenton and Atkins?



Rubbish. This current Wigan side is not fitter and stronger than the past Wigan side ten years ago. The likes of Feka Paleaasina, Mark Riddell, Karl Pryce are drastically unfit and it is the fitness levels at the club that is of major concern and has come under the most scrutiny.

We've won jack s[ihit[/i for 30 years. An odd win in 1988, 1990 and so on and so forth ....... to what - a whitewash in 2008? Same difference to me. Don't kid yourself that 20 years ago we were slightly better than we are today by comparison. It all amounts to the same thing - we're still way behind. We were 20 year ago and we still are today. By what degree? Does it matter? We're still crap.

OK, so the SC isn't levelling things out because, by your criteria, Leeds have just one three on the bounce.

Fine, lets get ride of the cap. That way, the team with the most money should win.

Oh, that'll be Leeds again

Whats this lark about same 2 every year..
You'll have to tell me what saints won this year.......

It's worth remembering in this debate that the north is the birthplace of the co-operative movement. That means that you help each other in a spirit of mutual aid - a coming together, as it were.

Contrast that with the pursuit of individual self interest. That means that you are on your own, single-handed - at heart, a banker.

How have Leeds won despite the restraints of the Salary Cap? Lets look at the following....

Lee Smith, Ryan Hall, Danny Maguire. Rob Burrow, Matt Diskin, Jamie Jomes-Buchanan, Luke Burgess, Kevin Sinfield, Ian Kirk, Carl Ablett, Kallum Watkins, Simon Worrell... etc.

Where did these guys come from? How much did they pay for them in transfer fees, bidding wars? It's a lesson for all clubs who want a successful team over a number of years.

What relevance are transfer fees?

Is the lesson to offer your players a choice - trophies or money?

What a great advertisement for our game that is.

You're also forgetting that Leeds won whilst having a squad that was under the salary cap, due to the work permit problems experienced with Greg Eastwood. Leeds didn't draft in a replacement for him, even though they had the cap space to do so.

Compare with the Wigan side who overspent on the salary cap to the tune of £222,314 in 2007 and were still sh[ii[/it.

but this has nothing to do with the fact Brent Webb earns a liveable wage

which seems a good example of the strangely inverse relationship we as a sport have with success

erm.......................

a cap on spending on certain players? a cap on the type of player you can bring in? a more prescriptive set of rules regarding squad make up, a cap which rewards clubs for doing what we want them to do?

And? Leeds' top players will be earning top player money. Their main players will still be amongst the best paid in Super League.

The difference is how you keep the rest of the squad together. The Leeds bench played a massive part in last night's victory and yet their salary demands will be considerably less. If those players were motivated more by their fiscal achievements, the result of yesterday's game would have been very different, irrespective of what Brent Webb or Danny Buderus are or aren't being paid.

As mentioned, Luke Burgess will probably have a smaller pay slip than Nick Scruton this year but I can imagine that he would have been the happier of the two at 8pm last night.

regardless of speculative posturing on the quality of the GB side, what is FACT is that there are a huuuuuge amount more overseas players playing in this country since the advent of the cap, and as such a lot less british players, which common sense will tell you affects the squad we can put out

and again, this has nothing to do with how much Brent Webb earns,

Luke Burgess pay packet should be decided on Luke Burgess value to Leeds, not Nick Scrutons or Danny Buderus.

It may very well be the case that for £5k extra Nick Scruton would still be playing for Leeds, it maybe GH would have been happy to pay it to him, he just couldnt because of Salary Cap restraints. How has this helped anyone? the answer, it hasnt really

What it means is that a fantastic youth set-up means that you bring first-team ready players through on a small wage. They become first team regulars and you upgrade their contract from the original and so on and so on...

If you pay a transfer fee, like Wigan did for Fielden for example, or pay top whack to lure a player to your club, like Sean Long to Hull, then you have tied up a huge wedge of your cap and are crossing your fingers for a return on that investment. You are also chopping and changing and losing continuity.

The cap being cut for more successful teams would represent an inverse relationship. Success creates new challenges in RL (rather than it becoming self-perpetuating like it has in football) - challenges Leeds have met magnificently. That is why I admire them rather more than if they had done this by just waving the dosh.

Our crapness relative to Australia has nowt to do with the cap - the game is huge in Eastern Australia. Removing the cap isn't going to suddenly or even gradually increase participation here or see cash flood into the game here.

So you advocate paying the players who graduated from the youth set up at below their market rate?

Quite true. It will, however, stop the short-termist self-destruction that is currently occuring.

It gave Luke Burgess a chance to become established in a championship team. It allowed Scruton to take on more responsibility and fulfill a more important role at a club, while still getting the extra £5K he felt he was worth. It helped Bradford for obvious reasons. It freed up cap space/cash with which Leeds could reward other players, invest in youth etc. It made it easier for Leeds to operate in the black - one of the few clubs that do. It helped keep a cap on wage inflation - not without its drawbacks, but how much extra would fans be willing to pay for their season tickets to avoid one Lee Smith defection each year? Not much, I'm guessing.

The self perpetuating success in Football comes from the prize money, not the lack of a salary cap,

and it is perpetuated by clubs buying more talented players every season, unlike in RL where you cant even keep the players you had to start with