Why so? 14 teams of equal player ability, any team can win on any day, sounds fantastic to me.
The talent can't be spread thinner - we'd have to reduce the amount of talent for that to happen.


We certainly do need more clubs producing more quality. Not sure why you think the salary cap hinders that though


Are there? Who?

Any player in sport just for the money isn't in the right business.

anybody thinking a guy shouldn't get as much out of his best years as he can isn't thinking straight! These guys sacrifice a lot, a huge amount, just to entertain us.

So how would consolidating all the best talent at few clubs (or if you had your way, Leeds) make the league as a whole better?

Taken in isolation the SC may not in itself drive clubs to develop young British players, but in combination with the ongoing staged reductions in quota players there will be an increase over the next few years.

I wouldn't look to consolodate all the talent at one club, or even three or four, I would look to have more talent at more clubs, the only way to do that is to force clubs to bring through more talent, make their success or failure dependant on it, this sc simply hasn't done that, we have seen more and more clubs sign more and more overseas players

And the quotas are a restraint of trade they will always be challanged and always fail to stand up in court,

The sc has done completely the opposite of what you are stating, why will it now change?

Well you clearly said that talent being spread across more clubs is bad for the league as a whole, the implication being that talent consolidated in a few clubs is good for the league as a whole.

As I said the SC in isolation may not encourage clubs to develop young players but there is now the reduced quota rules which although have been challenged and relented upon I think that when the players currently in the systems to whom dispensation applies leave, promotions to replace will come from within more often than not.

Also, we are not even 1 year into the franchising experiment which allows clubs to plan further ahead and introduce players who may have been deemed too much of a risk in the past with the threat of relegation.

Basically I think that we will not know for another year or two what effect the radical changes introduced will have. If at that time there is no evidence of more British youngsters playing in SL then I guess the changes will be deemed to have failed, but they need to be allowed some time before we start to criticise overmuch.

As if any professional sportsperson isn't interested in getting paid well! Absurd and frankly irrelevant comments like that are part of the reason many SC opponents refer to it as the "Communist Cap".

I think that the levelling down analogy with communism is a good one and certainly the SC produces the same kind of stagnation that the failed economies of eastern europe etc witnessed.

However calling the cap "communist" misses the crucial point that the SC exists to benefit club owners (with their dismally short termist focus) and the obsessive fans of some clubs who either believe the Sky TV led hype that our game gets better and better every year, level playing field etc etc etc or (and I think this describes most of them, unfortunately) cynically believe that its good for their club, despite the obvious damage to the game overall.

You appear to be a sensible pro-SC poster. There aren't many of you, unfortunately. My only hope for the long-term future of RL is that people like you start to speak up, eventually, when the failure of the SC can no longer be denied. Its pretty obvious that there are lots of fanatic die-hards who will never be convinced that the game is going backwards.

Simple solution , drop the number of teams in SL to 8 , they all have more money to spend and the competition will improve

Sorted

Bill: the SC has been around a decade and has the complete opposite effect, if the quota brings down overseas players the quota has done, nothing to do with the SC,

And thinking all the talent been spread thinly throughout the league is a ha thing, doesn't imply having it consolidated is a good thing. Simply better!

It is healtheir to have four or five of real quality an two or three poor at the bottom, than what we have now, or even 14 mediocre clubs which it seems is the aim of some people

So because Leeds have lost a few to teams they expect to murder the quality is dropping , not most clubs are getting better

So can we try to buy our way back to the top please

no the quality is dropping because a fair amount of el on show this year has been awful

Thats because the coaches are ' pushing the boundaries ' in defence

Deano, I've sent several players on their way to pro RL and pro RL. None of those have ever raised the amount they would be paid as a reason for choosing which code to play or choosing to pursue a career or not.

Hold on here Smokey. Now you're confusing "salary cap" with "increasing the number of teams in the league"
The salary cap doesn't cause talent to be spread more thinly or thickly. It cause it to be spread more evenly.
Where do you get the idea that quality is irrelevant? What possible point have I made to give you that idea? Try to stick to what's on the table here.


This is the first year we have had a hard cap (meaning it can't be breached) and even cap (meaning the same cap for all teams)


Wigan made the daft decision to bring in some imports over Ashton, who isn't even making the team in Northampton. Walker is playing RL last I heard, and was Farrell in a state to continue playing.
Rumours about Sinfield and Smith.....I asked who'd gone, not which rumours you dreamed up.

They play a sport that they would continue to play if they had work in a full time living and pay to play every week. As do 100 times as many players every week.

Close and competitive games are what improve standards. There is no substitute for the effect of competitive matches on playing standards. This makes the league, as a whole, better.

There are posts earlier in this thread showing that the all conquering Wigan team was only just better than the semi-pro sides it was competing against. This is natural, they were as good as they needed to be to win and no better.

why pay them anything then?

Most teams don't, and most players never earn anything meaningful.

you've confused yourself, the talent is spread thinner because the same amount of talent which made 4 or 5 clubs very good, is being used to make 12 teams pretty average, nothing to do with the increase in teams


there has been an 'even' cap for a few years now and the fact it was breached previously isnt much of a defence of it

its true, i made up the smith to ru rumour, went pretty far that one

and why try to shift the point? i never said thousands were going simply that they could and do and ru are a factor

erm im pretty sure you need to be paid to be a pro, its a pretty important part of it

At least you're being less ambiguous now.
Were you happy with a league of 4 or 5 clubs ?
That same talent spread between clubs works better for me.


No there hasn't.
I could just leave it at that. But I'll help you out, because I'm kind like that.
The previous cap had two flaws:
The 50% turnover rule meant not all clubs could spend the same.
Clubs were allowed to breach the cap with no in-season punishment, only suffering a small fine and points deduction the following season.



Me shift the point?

I asked where these players were going to leave RL for, and you were immediately reduced to making stuff up

not really, playing with and against better players makes you better

playing at a mediocre level in close games doesnt really


and how is this an argument that we need a cap?

I didn't say you didn't. What point are you trying to make here, if any?