So they only won the league twice in that time? Doesn't that show that even though Saints have been a consistantly dominant force, there have been other teams on a similar level able to knock them off their purch every time?

I'm still waiting for this evidence that paying players more makes them better players? The only argument I've heard is that it is an incentive. How about instead of paying them more as an incentive to perform, they actually pay more on decent coaching staff/facilities/research and actually make them better players from it?

Just because you pay more wages won't make them better. And just because you buy decent players doesn't mean they will perform at the same level. Not enough emphasis is put on coaching development and management these days, and hopefully we will see this change in the future.

hmm the lower placed clubs (bar celtic) have been more competitive than ever. Warrington until last week were second bottom, but this is nowhere near as bad a season as 02 for us. Come to think of it, after the last couple of weeks..we're pretty good

That's it, drag everyone down to the 'smaller' clubs' level.

I didn't see that one coming...

Wrong, makes an even playing field preventing the likes of Wigan signing overpriced aussies et al meaning you have to make shrewd signings like the 'smaller' clubs, hasn't affected saints enough for them to moan has it now?

Boo Hoo Wigan

Plus you didn't get the gist of DA's post in the slightest, surprise surprise...

To be fair to the 'muppet Wiganers', I've never encountered one stupid enough to offer to dance naked on the opposing team's town hall steps should their team lose.

Maybe you should look closer to home for the muppets, Beaker.

dont air yoyr laundry on here you dirty b*stard!

how does limiting their ability to improve not make clubs weaker?

Because it's not limiting their abilities to not improve, perhaps?

Well it wouldn't, would it? It might stop them from getting stronger but it wouldn't make them weaker.
However I don't see how that is relevant as we are discussing the salary cap and not something that limits the abilities of clubs to improve. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it removes one of the barriers to improvement.

To be fair, the actual original post I made was not talking about the salary cap as I don't think that's the reason for it, I think it's more to do with crap coaching set-ups.

During that time Wigan also had the Regal Trophy, Premiership and (for part of the period in question) the Lancashire Cup to compete for. Had there only been league and cup to command their attentions then it is possible their domination might have been even more comprehensive.

The salary cap is a good thing. Back in 1990 Widnes agreed terms with Kelvin Skerrett and he was all set to join when Wigan offered double the salary. 10% or 20% more would have done the job but they wanted to put down a marker. Widnes almost went bust trying to keep up with this reckless inflation. Warrington fans will be better placed to comment, but I seem to recall they similarly got in the financial mire in later years with signings like Davies and Bateman, again trying to keep pace with Wigan.

Wigan didn't need Martin Offiah. Arguably they couldn't really afford him, what with the cost of the new stand. But they felt they had to have him and there was nothing in place to stop them. I remember Jack Robinson moaning in 1995 that there was nobody capable of giving them a game - maybe because they had signed all the best players? And perhaps if they had saved the million pounds that Offiah cost them in transfer fee and wages then they might not have had to have been rescued by Mr Whelan and their recent history might have been a little more rosy.

I know Saints have flirted with financial troubles in the Super League era but, had it not been for the Salary Cap, then they probably would have gone down the same route as Wigan of signing anyone and everyone in the past decade and would likely be ruined by now, along with one or two others attempting to keep up with them.

Well, how many good coaches do we have in the SL, 3? Okay, there might be another 6 or so who may prove to be worth it, but that leaves 1/3 of the clubs with sub-par coaches.

eh?

so in a constantly evolving world stagnation doesnt leave you weaker

except it does, and you know it does, pretending it doesnt is just silly, in fact its actually the point of it, to stop some clubs becoming much much better than anothers, it is one of only two things it can possibly do, the other being to stop players seeking their true value.

had that happened we would have got what we deserved, elite sport is no place for such reckless practises such as those shown by widnes and warrington

I seem to recall Leeds getting into a spot of financial bother and looking to sell their part of Headingley and move to Elland Rd at one point.

The salary cap does not stop some clubs becoming much much better than others. Leeds and Saints are much much better than Wigan despite having the same cap on their player salaries. All three are much much better than the dominant Wigan sides of the past.

You seem to believe the only way clubs can improve is by spending more money on players. This is wrong. It may be the easiest way but it is by no means the only way. Paying players more does not make them better players. It does nothing to improve the overall talent pool, standards or quality in the league, unlike the alternatives.

He supports Leeds so in a word.......yes.

Incorrect. The SC is a restraint of trade (whether it is lawful or not is arguable but that is a different point). A restraint of trade is so called because it restricts competition between economic entities.

Leaving the principle aside, the clubs you mention have teams which are currently better than Wigan, just as Wigan in the early 90s was better than say Leeds, despite Leeds spending vast amounts on players. No-one is saying that without an SC pay would be the only factor at work. The great Wigan sides adopted Australian inspired modern coaching, training and fitness methods before the other clubs, that was a huge part of their success.










You can't really believe this.

The current Saints and Leeds teams aren't as good as say the Saints team of a few years ago or the Bradford team of 2005. SL has taken giant leaps backwards in the last few years particularly, as the SC induced stagnation has taken hold.

The current Wigan side isn't a patch on the team of the turn of the Millenium, which we all knew at the time was a lot weaker than the great sides of the early 90s.



No-one is saying the "only" way clubs can improve is by spending more money on players. Unfortunately pro-cappers have a tendancy to try to paint the case against the cap in very simplistic terms. This is another example. Pay is clearly a very important part of the motivation of professional athletes, but this isn't the only factor at work in determining whether or not teams are succesful.

Given that many clubs as a result of SC pay young players what are not spectacular wages in anyone's book, there is a very powerful case for saying that the overall talent pool is being reduced by the SC - the game would attract more high quality young athletes if it paid better wages. That's just basic economics.

When you then add to this a situation where many clubs with the limited budgets caused by the SC are opting for what are perceived to be less risky (due to their NRL background) ready made overseas players rather than taking a risk on up and coming british talent then you have a recipe for a very small and limited talent pool. That's what is being served up by the SC.

Except that in the case of RL the Salary Cap increases competition by limiting any one club's ability to simply buy success (removing a barrier to entry if you will). Forcing development of playing strength into others areas such as youth development.




Young employees tend to be paid lower wages compared to older more experienced employees in any employment, this is not unique to RL. Is it not the case that usually professional athletes choice of sport is made very early in life, certainly before money becomes an issue?

In which case you are suggesting that paying young players more would mean that RL will attract athletes away from other sports at around the age of 16/17/18. This may happen, but I suggest that the numbers so switching will be very low indeed and would barely serve to increase the talent pool.



This completely ignores the restrictions on the numbers of overseas players introduced by the RFL and actually does not correspond with what is actually happening in the game. There are more and more young British players making their way into first team squads and this will continue precisely because of the combination of SC and reduction in overseas player quotas.

Indeed they are not. However it would be the domineering factor. Given than there will always be a large variation in the amount the clubs in the league can afford to pay there will be a large variation in the standard of the clubs in the league. So fewer competitive matches leading to fewer spectators, fewer viewers, lower revenues, restricted development of players and tactics. Unless there is something to address this variation.

and we were also, for a time run by idiots

and had there not been an sc leeds and saints would be even better sides because they have got it right, wigan would likely be better too, along with most clubs,

really? kindly show some evidence please

no it doesnt, but having more players, who are of a higher quality costs more, even if they have come through your academy

the sc does nothing at all toward this