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

Move all the best players to one club and they will become worse players. They will be playing less demanding games of reduced intensity each week resulting in them becoming worse players.

But who cares as long as they are playing for Leeds and winning

I would hate to sound like League Freak but the quality of the average game in Super League this season has been awful compared to the NRL. It is far less a case of the other sides improving but Saints and especially Leeds slipping backwards towards the pack. What is worrying is that these two clubs earned their success mostly through British players. For the longer term future of the game we need clubs that develop their own players to come to the fore. Hopefully things will improve and it is only a temporary down turn but it is a bad sign for the game when a team with a minimal youth development policy and crowded with imports from the lower reaches of the NRL is in the top 2.

Or is it the other clubs that are playing better defencively ?

Comparing matches let alone different competitions on different continents or even different years is impossible , no game is the same , the game changes every year as different coaches focus on different aspects of the game

You seem to have a problem with HKR's junior development ?

They are only in their 4 th year in SL , have alook how their academy and reserve teams are doing in their competitions compared to Leeds this year ?

Junior development doesn't happen overnight , it took leeds the best part of 6/7 years from when Dean Bell got it sorted till they started to produce their own quality SL players

Hull KR have improved year on year, Huddersfield and Castleford are better this year than they were last. Just because the same old teams aren't running away with it at the top does not mean the standard is worse.

Perhaps the problem is that Leeds and Saints, Wigan and Bradford have had it too easy for too long and they are now struggling to adapt to a more balanced league where standards across the board are getting better. No more easy games. Perhaps some of those clubs are ill equipped to deal with the exciting new era that the RFL has ushered in...

It's funny how the obvious conclusion to draw between Saints and Leeds both struggling a bit more this season is that they've gone backwards (with pretty much the same players) rather than other teams having strengthened.

Seems to me that the opposite is evident - would, for example, Brett Hodgson have signed for Huddersfield if there was no salary cap?

Which is why we have a system in place (the salary cap) that only rewards teams who produce quality players. There isn't any other way to success.

licensing did...

you mean like hull kr?

not really! If a club can't afford to spend £1.6m it can't afford to spend £1.6m licensing or not. Yet the sc does nothing to stop you spending £1.6m even if you can't afford it, therefore it doesn't stop you spending more than you can afford

yes hudds would,

But saints and leeds are worse both are a forward light and both without a recognized centre, both things they had last year