well done to leeds and the melbourne storm, both of whom have managed to win titles whilst fighting the impact of the salary cap

however melbourne are looking at losing either jeff lima or dallas johnstone and parramatta will be looking at losing players from next year as well.

still its inevitable both teams will lose more players to other clubs which is a great thing for RL.

That is incredibly restrictive and would result in some terrible teams. It would also hinder player development by stopping them from move teams.



How about from having a huge range of quality of teams in the league? So the matches are rarely competitive.

This all comes down to people mistakenly thinking that proffessional sport is a business like other proper businesses, it isn't

because good management negates the need for a salary cap



it can and will and has, competitent management will allow a club to grow and challenge for a champions league spot, that investment will then allow them to re-invest in keeping their spot and growing again to win it,

look at nal who have spent comparatively little but they have still consistantly challenged


and to limit these run away games we need more quality players,

SL squads run at 25 men, there are 12 english clubs, if we have 250 quality english players, then we will have close games cap or no cap

if you are a poor club, not putting the investment into youth development and scouting you deserve a poor side,

if you are terrible at these things, you deserve a terrible side,

and it doesnt stop any player moving clubs




so its better than we have 2 teams who run at 50% capacity all year so the utter crap we have in this league right now doesnt look quite so crap,

until they are blown away in the playoffs, this is somehow better?

Then what, exactly, are you talking about?



We can't compete with football, or what RU offers. Thinking we can if you abandon the salary cap is weird.



If they're good enough - like I said, we can't compete with what football and RU offer. The salary cap is nowt to do with that.



I doubt it. RU has always been much bigger in this country, even when it was technically amateur. Hence, more players. It always had better media coverage too - the salary cap is nothing to do with that.



The same players who were paid less would be just as good as the modern players if you put them in a modern environment.

Scottish footballers are paid more now than they were. Are there a larger number of top quality Scottish footballers these days? Certainly doesn't seem that way, does it?



And it's not because of the salary cap.



We don't have them because we have little national and media profile and we're not a fashionable game.

It's nothing to do with a salary cap. Removing the salary cap will not see a massive influx of all these people who are just [idying[/i to play RL but currently are not.

The standard below the top two is rising. Clubs are closing in the top two teams. That is better than increasing the gap in standards that ultimately results in lower standards all round, yes.

The thing is you actually believe that don't you?

This is why we will never agree on the CC.

The team that finished 8th in the regular rounds got to within 80 minutes of the GF and gave a strong performance against the eventual winners in their SF. The team that finished 7th went out in the first round to the fourth semifinalist, losing 18-12. this is your definition of being "blown away in the playoffs"?




see above

Arsenal are one of the big 4, not one of those challenging, they got through the CL door just before it shut. Teams like Leeds Utd used to be in it once upon a time. I'm bet they are glad there is no cap in football to foil their ambitions.
Good management was once enough to get Derby and Notts Forest to the top. Couldn't happen now. The dream is dead.

Manchester City's recent splurge might have put them up there, but the top 4 will have had the biggest wage bills for a number of years - plus the added pull of being one of only 4 teams who can realistically expect to win something. The idea of Arsenal as a little club proving it can be done against the odds is frankly laughable.

as was put before, 14/15 year olds who play numerous sports, the ones who will need to pick one to try for a career in, to join an proffessional player pathway,

which you somehow confused with 7 year olds and calculators

we can compete, we may not win but we can compete, the size of the GP and SL are similar and we can certainly compete with 3rd division football,


the salary cap caps salaries, its what it does, it is its reason for being, to limit the amount players earn is everything the cap stands for, it is use

in fact if it doesnt do this, it cant possibly be a salary cap, it is self evident that a salary cap will cap what players earn

i really dont see how you are struggling with this,

the salary cap caps salaries, this makes us less attractive a career, this means we attract less, and we are clearly poorer for it


well you should, your assertion is very very wrong!



but there would be fewer of them

there were more playing in the bigger better english leagues previously, surprisingly enough, because they earned more money.


not solely no, but partly.
or are you saying athletes dont go where the money is, in your argument we need a cap otherwise all the players would play for one big club as it would be able to pay them more?


so we need to offer them something else, maybe money? you know, the reason pro sport is professional



as evidenced by the pre SC days when we never had players like Offiah, Davies, Gibbs, etc playing RL, oh hang on

Exactly - the ideal outcome for a conventional business is driving your competitors out of business and monopolising the market, subject to the local laws.

That's the worst possible outcome for a sporting competition, where the entire existence relies on the ability to provide competition on the pitch for the fans and viewers to enjoy.

see the performances of the teams who finished 3rd and 4th against those who finished 1st and 2nd,

Lets also get some perspective here.

Jamie Peacock, Brent Webb, Kevin Sinfield, Ali Lauitiiti, Danny Buderus - these players are hardly going to be going hungry are they?

I read Sinfield's same comments in the matchday programme and for me, it was perhaps more a reference to some of the fringe players in the squad - Ryan Bailey, Ian Kirke, Carl Ablett, Luke Burgess, Ryan Hall - the kind of players that every squad needs but are still usually towards the bottom end of the pay scale.

I think we also need to remember that not everybody is as shallow and materialistic as Kenny comes across as. Not everybody is motivated by the size of their wage slip - for some, personal achievement, job satisfaction and their situation outside their career are equally, if not more important.

Life should be all about stability and that’s what rugby league is trying to breathe through into its clubs. Football ‘stars’ getting millions is only widening the gap between the rich and poor. I’m not saying that footballer don’t deserve this wage because football and entertainment is a big audience meaning big money however its morally wrong.

Whilst someone gets paid 200k a week for kicking a ball about you’ll find family’s up and down the country doing jobs they hate just to keep a roof over their head whilst these football stars get to live through this misery we have on this planet a lot easier. This lifestyle of the rich is pushed upon us on a daily bases through newspapers and the tv - its like taking the in a way.

In this world its just one extreme to another when in hindsight all we need is something to do, food on our plates, roofs over our head in order to get through life. Unfortunately we’ve developed greed.

not the point really is it

Also in a conventional business you can be the worst in the country but still be a success , ie make a good profit

In a sports ' business ' you can be the best in the league/country/world and yet be financially a disaster , Chelsea and now Manchester City spring to mind

No, I pointed out that almost our entire player base comes from people who play the game because they want to when they're kids. You talk about attracting more players - that's where you start. And the salary cap has nothing to do with that situation.







Which utterly, deliberately and quite predictably ignores the Heineken Cup, 6 Nations and RU World Cup. Which are massive, massive selling points that we cannot compete with.



So all these 14 year olds we're losing are thinking "I can join a SL team, or spend my career in a 3rd division football team"?





No. Those kids who choose football are aiming for the top, regardless of whether they get there or not. They may see that 3rd division club as a stepping stone upwards, in which case the comparison with the SL is pointless, as they're making a choice based on a contract they want to sign couple of steps down the line.



No, it's not - the salary cap also stands for a measure of financial prudence and an attempt to address the financial mismatch we currently have while we attempt to improve the strength of the clubs across the board.



[iCareer[/i is the important word here. These 14 year olds you're talking about are not expecting to fail, they're busting a gut to reach the top. We cannot currently compete with top level football or RU - salary cap or no salary cap. They are not attracted to 3rd division football or bit parts at RU clubs; that's not why they go in that direction. The fact that we have a salary cap is nothing to do with that.

We cannot compete with what top level football or RU offers to these kids. And that's what they're chasing.



I am quite comfortable with thinking that way, due to the size of the RU sport compared to RL in those periods. We had strength in certain areas, certainly, but when a huge number of schools all over the nation had one or more RU teams, huge numbers of towns and cities had one or more RU teams, the armed forces had RU presence and so did the universities - well, I don't see a problem with what I've said.

If you can find the figures, I'm happy to stand corrected. Until then, I don't see what's controversial about what I said there.



Why would there be?



There were also more playing in the smaller, inferior Scottish leagues and they earned less money. Scotland are poor at international level; they don't have the players they used to produce. And yet they're paid more. Hmmm.



The quote from Leeds sources which started this thread would suggest not. Burgess and Ellis would suggest not.



P!ss poor attempt.

We had them because Union was technically amateur. As soon as Union became pro, Gibbs went back. And do you know what? We didn't have a salary cap when he went back, did we?

its obvious thats always been the case. of course someone will play for a top side for less than they will another. even more so with leeds given that a lot of them have grown up together

i cant be bothered repeating it again, go re-read what i put




we can compete with them, we do compete with them, i dont know why you are pretending we dont,

we could compete better if we spent some money doing it

yes, most of the best athletes will play 2 or 3 sports, many are offered opportunities in more than one,

like Shaun Edwards, David Doherty, Berrick Barnes



yes, the one where even if they dont make it higher than 3rd division, they will still be paid the same if not more than if they choose SL and become the best player in the world




the salary cap does none of these things, it caps salaries, thats why its a salary cap, its called that because that is solely what it does,

there is no financial prudence in a salary cap, being financially prudent would be to spend what you can sustainably afford regardless of any arbitrary amount set by somebody else




what an incredibly niave thing to say

we can, and we do, if we didnt compete we wouldnt exist,

we do compete





well you are wrong


it isnt controversial, simply wrong,

RU has had a massive increase in players and support since it went pro, absolutely huge



because they would be doing other things, for more money


scotland have always been poor, they were however better, when their best players were earning more money playing in the english league,



why did you need to edit that quote? is it because it showed the ridiculously contradictory nature of your argument




no, we didnt, but shock bloody horror, when he was offered more money he changed sports, crikey moses, what a surprise

Offiah, Davies, Gibbs chased the money, so did Smith, Walker, Robinson,

and if we were to offer more money than RU, maybe the Offiah Davies and Gibbs of today would play RL rather than RU,

Very very good post Smokey.

Ditto.



In much the same way that a kid with a slingshot can compete with a tank.

If it comes down to money, we can't compete with them. Which shows you that money isn't everything, because we're still here.



Exactly - they can, by their own targets, fail [iand still make as much money as a SL player[/i. If they succeed, well - we all know what the potential is.

Hence, the salary cap in the SL is pretty irrelevent, because those kids are not aiming for division 3 football or bit parts at a RU club, which would place them in the SL wage brackets. they're aiming for the top, and we can't compete with them at that level.



Again, you're focussing on the [iwhat[/i deliberately ignoring the [iwhy[/i.

This is like arguing that surgery is bad because you're cutting someone open, and ignoring [iwhy[/i you're cutting someone open - "surgery is just cutting someone up, that's solely what it is".



Alas, history has shown us that financial prudence cannot be relied upon from sports clubs. Each failure damages the sport as a whole.



That makes no sense. In those terms I can compete with DHL by lugging around boxes on my own street. I'm not sure any sensible observer would class me as competition to DHL, and nor do I think any sensible observer would claim we can currently offer anything compete with top level football or RU.



How nice. Shame for your point that I was discussing the [iamateur[/i days, isn't it?



And earning less than Scottish players can do now. So why have they not produced more players of similar quality?



What quote have I edited, exactly? You're banging on about the salary cap putting players off, as they're paid less than some notional amount they "deserve", which is directly contradicted by what I pointed out.



You tried to claim that the salary cap would prevent us signing players like Gibbs.

I pointed out that he went back RU when it went pro, despite us not having a salary cap at that time. Which supports my argument that it's not the salary cap that stops us competing for such players. It's that we don't have the money or high end competitions that RU and football do.

I find it amazing that you think a RU club would try to sign a young player without waving the World Cup, 6 Nations and Heineken Cup under their noses.



We can't offer more money for players of the calibre of Davies and Gibbs. If they're on the market, certain RU clubs will have more money to throw around. In the past, we had the advantage of signing on fees and above board pay over RU. No longer.

Offiah was an unknown at a minor RU club when he was signed, we could just as easily do the same in his case in the age of the salary cap.

I am touched.

It is though isn't it.

Carl Ablett is less important to Leeds as he would be to other clubs. Whilst he's (probably) towards the bottom end of the pay scale at Leeds, he's likely to be higher up that scale at a club like Wakefield or Castleford.

However, he choses to remain at Leeds because finance is not the sole motivating factor.