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

I'm going out on a limb here......


Maybe the standard of the British game is dropping like a stone because British players and coaches are bad and getting worse.



Just throwing that out there.

The SC is there to force clubs to improve themselves off field and remove the temptation to over spend on field

The same applies to the removal of P and R both to SL clubs and Championship clubs

To argue for one but against the other is both stupid and hypocritical

Then again we already know that

Would they have got it right if they spent all of their money on buying players rather than putting it into their infrastructure? Buying in players and paying high wages is a shortcut to actually developing them. Saints and Leeds have got it right because they HAD to in order to compete. They wouldn't have to if it was about the cheque-book.


Yes it does as it forces clubs to develop players, therefore improving the talent pool, which in essence will improve the standards and quality of the league.

Has it changed?

Why?

This seems to be the fundamental issue here. Why does paying a player more make them a better player?

I've already answered this

Exactly! Therefore your post is biased, selective and represented only your own prejudices.

Edited: (for the purpose of dealing the with actual reality)

no, leeds and saints made a decision to put faith in developing players, most of this current leeds squad who came through the academy will have been at leeds prior to the sc being in place, the infrastructure was already there,

and what your describing isnt a difference between and SC and a none-SC world, but the difference between a well run business and a poorly run one, and neither Leeds nor Saints were running a wage bill higher than what the SC is prior to it being in place, to credit it with somehow stopping them spending more is nonesense, only wigan were spending more, and still werent overly succesful which is why only wigan got a dispensation for the first couple of years of the SC


where is the evidence? when there is more overseas players in this country post SC than Pre SC? when you yourself have started this thread saying you think the quality is falling? the SC has been in place for ten years, throughout than ten years fewer british youngsters have been developed to elite level than prior to SC, and the standard according to you (which i agree with) is falling these things seem entirely contradictory

so then why isnt the SC based on what is affordable rather than an arbitrary amount which has barely changed in ten years?

3 SLs, 4 GFs, 2 WCCs, record crowds, a record points total, a record winning margin for the league, says yes, fortunately it has

it doesnt, the part you quoted specifically says it doesnt, though as has been explained having more players, of better quality costs more, paying him more doesnt make him better, but for more money, you can get better, its fairly simple

a player will always seek his worth, thats his right, so a young hooker comes through an academy, makes the breakthrough and becomes a first team regular will rightly expect a pay rise to a level commensurate with his talent, he may be the best hooker in the country, if there isnt the space under the cap to make him the best paid hooker in the country, he either has to accept a wage lower than he rightly deserves, or he has to move making the team which nurtured him and invested in him worse than if they had kept him, they then need to replace him, but there isnt another hooker of his talent, so they then have to pick up another hooker who is either experienced but so poor he would accept the wage of a young hooker on the fringes, or another young hooker, who wasnt quite as good as his colleague who has just left, or you are expecting clubs to somehow bring through another top quality young hooker, who they will lose again in a couple of years or they will need to lose somebody else to keep him

whilstever a club is looking at an either/or choice then they arent improving to the level they could have

it is neither selective nor biased nor predjudiced it simply dealt with the two examples in the post I quoted

Your paranoia and over-sensitivity does you no favours, especially considering who long you spend arguing widnes fans aren't bitter paranoid conspiracy theorists, posts like this are pretty counter-productive

But to address the point you were too bitter and paranoid of an anti widnes conspiracy to phrase properly, it doesn't matter what had gone before, we shouldn't be giving licenses in the franchise era to clubs run by people we can't trust to run their businesses responsibly,