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.

As the new "development" strategy is showing.

the 50% rule hasnt been in place since 06, the two seasons with 50% rule have seen the same two teams win EVERYTHING relevant



so these semi-pro sides were 'only just worse' but 'provided no competition', interesting



really? surely that would only hold true if we had only 25 top quality players? and ill ask again, why would they need to when they would be as good as they needed to be to win and no better.

ok, so why does this SC pay no attention to a clubs financial status?

where are they then?
thats the point, now there is only leeds and saints, five years ago there was wigan bradford wire and hull too, 6 of 12, thats pretty bloody healthy

we should drop any club who cant be trusted to run themselves in a sustainable way

i dont think i have, take leeds v bradford, tense, undecided to the end, awful performances from both sides, it seemed like both where trying to lose they were that bad, leeds v cas the same

no i have explicitly said that isnt the case

So whats the problem , it aint broke so dont try to fix it

It used to be broke and they have now fixed it

Leeds can spend the extra income on things , like you know ' Facilities ' and things

you're right, you are insane

Checkmate

The salary cap is about long term improvement of all clubs as opposed to the short improvement of one club at the expense of all the others. Two years is not a long time however we are starting to see the effect - see the league table.



The level those top players would be playing at would be as good as they needed to be. As they'd be playing against weaker teams that would be a lower standard than we currently enjoy. Without competition driving improvement standards would drop.

you mean the top two for the last two years are in the top 3 despite being poorer sides?

but they were competion, to beat a team only slightly worse than you, you must be at or near your best

So you do agree that standards would go down without the salary cap. Glad you've finally got there.

its impressive you pretend exposing the contradiction in your argument strengthens it