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.

And contrast him to Nick Scruton, who was a Leeds semi-regular and played in the 2008 winning GF side.

Scruton's contract was up at the end of last season and was offered a new deal by Leeds. He either didn't or was advised by his agent not to sign it and held out for more money, which Leeds were either unable or unprepared to give him.

Thus, Nick Scruton left Leeds at the end of last season and signed for Bradford. If you believe some of the rumours, for not much more than £5K a season (but I have no idea of the relative salary amounts) on top of what he was earning at Leeds.

The chances are, had he stayed at Leeds, he'd have been in the side that played in the final last night.

It boils down to the question, what would you rather have ? If it is another £5K in your pocket, then surely he won't be regretting his decision. Or, if it is medals and memories (something money can't buy), then I guess last night might have been quite uncomfortable pegged with the thoughts of 'what could have been'.

How to use E-bay?

Is this the title of Keith Senior's autobiography?

What a load of absolute stinking drivle. The argument about attracting other athletes is total garbage, people play the sport they are good at. Kids in scholl don't think "I will play football because footballers earn more money.". They play it beacuase they are good at it and enjoy it. People who design computer games have a great job, and probably earn a fortune doing it. But I don't do that for a living, why? Because I wouldn't actually be any good at it!

I disagree. I think the final this year was as predictable as ever, and the playoffs were dull dull dull, because everyone knew who was going to be in the final.

A salary cap set at an arbitrary level for all clubs is ridiculous, because as Smokey says, all it serves is do is to artificially lower the standards to artificially even the competition on the field.

And it is still failing to do that.

Effectively Leeds can't reward their players because if they do Cas could go bust.

Brilliant.

Lots of old pro-CC chestnuts on this thread:

1. Tedious personal abuse (you can tell when certain people have lost an argument)

2. The CC stops clubs from getting into financial difficulties (obviously I just imagined the GatesHull fiasco, London's repeated issues pre-IL, Bradford's more recent difficulties and the Celtic scenario this season...

). Don't any of you pro-CC posters realise the 50% cap has gone, meaning that small clubs can massively overspend? Please don't pretend the CC is a well designed system to prevent clubs from financial difficulties, that is just ridiculous.

3. SL clubs can't afford to play players more, apparently. Rubbish. They haven't even increased the cap in line with inflation, let alone the average rise in earnings. Many pro-CC posters have a real problem with RL players earning what for most professional sportsmen at the top of their sport would be a very modest salary. Its sad to see such envy exposed. I don't have a problem with them earning a really good wage - good luck to our RL stars - they are talented people and its a short career. It obviously suits club owners and the small minded envy of some RL fans though to keep wages down.....

4. Apparently the "level playing field" (it's a bizarre level playing field that sees 2 clubs dominate year after year, but there you go...) is raising standards across the sport. Well, Wigan finished 6th and then made the semi-finals, losing narrowly to Saints, with a team from which only 3 or 4 of our players would have been able to get into the Wigan side of 10 years ago, let alone the sides of 15-20 years ago. The game has been going backwards, particularly in the last 3 or 4 years. At international level we are barely able to field a three quarter of world class, at FB we are light years behind the Aussies and Kiwis, as for the halves we are left desperately hoping that the likes of Tomkins, Eastmond and Myler will make the grade because the present crop just are not up to it. Our forwards are simply not good enough.

I'd like to see a competition that encouraged and rewarded ambition and growth. Unlike the Aussies we don't have a massive player base and big media coverage in this country. The game is getting increasingly marginalised. It needs to grow financially, it needs to grow its fan base and it needs to grow its player base. None of these things are helped by the dumbing down effect of the CC, which pulls all clubs down to the level of the smallest (who are allowed to spend recklessly!!!) and does nothing to encourage or reward player development, growth in crowds or increased financial performance, nor does it control finances properly to ensure clubs don't get into difficulty.

The head in the sand mentality of the pro-CC people on this thread would be amusing if the reality of today's RL and its likely slow decline were not so sad.

Pure conjecture. Different game, different players. You can't possibly know who would have got in which team and who wouldn't. Andy Goodway would have been puffing and blowing after 5 minutes of yesterday's GF and Sean Long's "skills" are no match for those of Sean Edwards. Comparisons in this scenario are pointless.