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?

Still not making sense Smokey. Those same "better players" are still in the league. Players are still playing with or against them.

It is evidence of a lack of competition leading to stagnation. Without competition the top team (the one that pays players more than the others can afford) doesn't get any better - it doesn't have to. The others can't improve as their best players leave for the more money offered by the top club. For this reason they can never compete with that top club. The cap addresses this problem.

Is this really that complicated?

i think we had more clubs and more british players playing at a better level, and 5 out of 12 competing is pretty healthy, certainly healthier than this


not since that was abolished a few years ago

and when did the last team break it on anything but a technicality and win something?



indeed, very strange smith himself believes has been talking to ru just because of a rumour i made up

read back, it will come to you

you mean like having 1 team win 3 out of 5 grand finals? or maybe a team finishing top 4 years in a row?
but hang on, you said

how were they only just better than the semi-pro sides yet have no competition?

and wouldnt a cap of say 25 pro players mean all the best players couldnt play for one club? besides why would one club have all the best players if

but they are playing with fewer and against fewer quality sides, just more mediocre ones

The 50% rule did make the cap less effective that it could be. You are right. Still better than no cap but not as good as it could be.



Not sure what you're asking there. The level at which they played was sufficient to win. They never improved beyond just better because there was no competition driving them on to improve.



That would allow the 25 best players to play for one club. And never improve as players as they would never play competitive matches. There is, however, quite a good way to stop all the best players from playing for one club. It's called a salary cap.

Turning everyone in medicore outfits.

Simply the game is far too slow compared to the NRL.

Quite simply there have been a lot of major changes to RL in the last year and the full effect of those, in combination with the current salary cap is not yet known. Perhaps the effect of the whole will be greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

Is there a drain of quality players away from the game? No.

I don't buy into the argument that potential players will choose some other sport either. The choice of sport is usually made in childhood, if that leads into a circumstance by which you can earn a living for playing the sport you love, then that is a bonus.

Is there a general lessening of "quality", well as has been said all the same players are still playing in the same league (pretty much). The two new clubs have hardly plundered the ranks of Leeds and Saints to form their squads.

I understand the argument against the cap and in theory allowing clubs to spend as much as they like should increase quality, but that supposes that there are players better than we have already in SL being left out for purely financial reasons, are there? And one thing is for sure, given license to spend, spend, spend RL clubs will do just that. If it is necessary to reign that in to create a sustainable SL then so be it.

Perhaps I'm easily pleased but I've seen some fantastic quality rugby played so far, often in tense, exciting games, the outcome of which is not known until virtually the final hooter and I'm looking forward to seeing plenty more before this season is done.

Tense, close and exciting games also change the decision making by players. The "top" players have less no pressure ..."another chance will come along in a minute" choices. This improves their skills...and as a side benefit makes them better at international level.

this argument is missing another important purpose of the cap...

it restricts clubs from spending ALL their revenue on players wages in the chase for immediate success, and encourages them to spend money on development work. It's this, for me, that is critical as it means we can starte to develop a long-term pool of better quality players.

Exactly. There's no point in having a great team and playing great rugby if you're going to end up bust and leave a big hole for the rest of RL to try and fix.