Richie, you can keep asking till the cows come home, smokey doesnt answer questions, the simpler you make them, the more complicated he will reply to them, its his brand of talking bollox

I'd debate against you Smokey, but your past behaviour on all forums and even current behaviour on this thread indicates you always entrench yourself in a position and either don't read or only selectively read any points made. As pointed out again, points were made showing the benefits of the cap, but either by selective or unconscious non-comprehension, you miss them. That being the case, if you can't absorb that kind of discussion, what's the use in me trying to engage in one with you?

Wooden Stand is a different matter. He might as well be a posting bot. I don't think he actually reads any posts other than his own - he even quotes his own.

Well, that was the shorter version of what I typed whilst you posted

Thats a cop out and you know it, the total of your argument in favour of the cap consists of I did address this, i didnt ignore it, but if this is your 'benefits of the cap, i just assumed you had something better. It isnt a justification for this cap above all others. If you are arguing for this cap, you need to show why this cap is the best, why that one single positive you believe you have found is done best under this cap. You seem unwilling to do this

Why would I with you though Smokey? As stated earlier, you either by choice or inability don't absorb responses which don't fit your agenda, and take a approach of a debate being something to "win" rather than viewpoint to be sold.
Until you can show you have the ability to absorb and consider information used by others, you will never make any progress.
I notice nobody else has shown any willingness to respond to you.

I could be interested in what you have got to say Smokey, but what's the point if you can't consider responses?
I could give a list of reasons, which you'd copy and paste into a multi-section quote, and then selectively ignore (the Grand Final appearance as your only measure of "success" being just one such recent example) either by choice or inability, what was raised next.
So many people have been through that so many times with you. Why would anyone bother again?

Ok then, don't. You're in favour of the sc but you aren't going to back it up. That's fine

Can anybody else then come out and say why they think the current Salary Cap Regulations are a good thing for the game in this country?

I can't see anything good about them and I personally would therefore scrap them immediately.

Plenty have, you just haven't read it.

When you can show the forum you can discuss, we might. Until then, we won't. Even in that last post, you show you can't.

I dont have anything to prove to you, especially considering your comments to wooden stand and how massively hypocritical you look when pretending to be some kind of bastion of civility whilst simultaneously patronising and insulting people.
Nobody is interested in your personal opinion of me, mine of you, how precious you become when people ask you to back up your opinion or how much of an I am, how important you think you and your opinion are or how much time we can waste talking about why you wont tell us why you think what you think. These things are self evident. Lets Get over it.

The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity - something that is so very rare in other RFL regulations.
However, I am coming around to the idea that clubs that can afford it should be allowed to pay one player outside of the cap, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable compromise IMO.

Quote ="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity'" Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf

Quote ="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity'" Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf

Quote ="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity - something that is so very rare in other RFL regulations. However, I am coming around to the idea that clubs that can afford it should be allowed to pay one player outside of the cap, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable compromise IMO.'" It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased

Quote ="Mild Rover"The main virtue of the current salary cap is its simplicity - something that is so very rare in other RFL regulations. However, I am coming around to the idea that clubs that can afford it should be allowed to pay one player outside of the cap, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable compromise IMO.'" It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased

Smokey ta talking about the needs of the rfl to be transparent....priceless

The purpose of the cap is very muddled and makes several claims:

1. They claim its supposed to equalize competition. For me, this hasn't worked, even if you agree with the motivation. I also have a problem with the whole concept of 'equalizing competition' anyway, because whilst generally desirable, its VERY hard to do it in a way that doesn't simply drag down the best clubs and create a talent drain. It's easier to get right when there's a ton of talent around, but we don't have that luxury.

Its also very naive to think of talent drain just in terms of top players going off to RU ( there aren't that many after all) - the real talent drain is the much more serious - but hidden - drain that starts with youngsters wondering what sports to try. Sports with glamour, fame and earning potential have the ability to attract more youngsters. Not *all* youngsters of course, but no one sensible can deny that the profile of a sport affects the level of junior interest. It doesn't mean we need to aspire to football style WAGs, etc, but its a issue nonetheless. The drain I'm worried about is the one that starts before a kid has even touched a rugby ball.

Solution: The problem with Wigan in the 90s wasn't for me about the first team, but the fact that the whole squad swept up the best talent in the League, so you had internationals on the bench that would have been better off (for the game of RL anyway) playing first team at another club. All we really need in terms of ensuring a reasonable spread of talent is hard squad limits, kind of like the 20/20 rule, although I'd be more aggressive and go for 13 'stars', 7 'sub-stars' and the rest juniors. That would *force* a spread of talent - if you're the second best scrum half (say) in the League, you're simply not going to be signed by the club with the best one - there's no room. In fact the 15th best scrum half in the country (who therefore is probably quite good) will be gracing a Championship side ... hopefully to take them to *promotion* ( another issue ! )

2. The cap is supposed to protect clubs. This one I'm not sure about -again, it doesn't seem to protect anyone in practise, and besides, why should the sport interfere with a clubs finances? Clubs don't *want* to go bust, but if they do, so what? 6 or 8 point deduction then someone, hopefully more financially savvy, buys it from the administrator. Shame on the clubs management who've got the shareholders or whoever to apologize to, but that's their problem really.

Scrap it.

Quote ="Wooden Stand"Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf'" But conceptually it's pretty straightforward and most people get it - apart maybe when they think you can 'save' cap space and then use it to go above the limit for a period believing it to be a maximum amount rather than a maximum rate. It could be summarised in a single sentence - unlike the complexities of the quota/non-fed system. However, as SmokeyTA points out: Quote ="SmokeyTA"It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased'" Couldn't agree more. It isn't just the cap (though the above is a classic example) - the whole system needs rationalising. The RFL just seem to keep piling regulation on top of regulation, making things ever more complicated. I hope the strategic review thing is grasped as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean for salary cap, competition structure, non-fed/quota, franchises - the lot; and then organise things properly, with some clear objectives in mind. Things need a shake now, IMO.

Quote ="Wooden Stand"Simplicity! Have you read the 37 pages of Regulations? www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... rt%205.pdf'" But conceptually it's pretty straightforward and most people get it - apart maybe when they think you can 'save' cap space and then use it to go above the limit for a period believing it to be a maximum amount rather than a maximum rate. It could be summarised in a single sentence - unlike the complexities of the quota/non-fed system. However, as SmokeyTA points out: Quote ="SmokeyTA"It used to be quite simple, though in true RFL style we know have exceptions for long serving players, for certain amounts for certain players and the Sam Tomkins panic clause of paying a secret player, a secret amount outside the cap, if the RFL decide you get some on a secret sliding scale dependent on an ever changing England/England Knights squad selection, that only applies for the 2012 and 2013 season. Having one player outside the cap, would be a very simple, and transparent rule change. It would be better for us to drop the cap by £200k and give a single exemption to a player so we can attract and keep even a few stars. But instead we got this wierd fudge which makes little sense and lacks even a semblence of transparency. Even if nothing else happened or changed, cleaning up this Sam Tomkins clause fudge would improve the cap massively. www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... rule-eased'" Couldn't agree more. It isn't just the cap (though the above is a classic example) - the whole system needs rationalising. The RFL just seem to keep piling regulation on top of regulation, making things ever more complicated. I hope the strategic review thing is grasped as an opportunity to wipe the slate clean for salary cap, competition structure, non-fed/quota, franchises - the lot; and then organise things properly, with some clear objectives in mind. Things need a shake now, IMO.

As a general rule of rhetoric it is, IMO, better to have one strong argument than one strong argument [iand[/i additional weaker ones. If we're to retain a cap, it should be justified simply as promoting competition. The success of the cap IMO is clearly not that it stops the same teams winning every year, it is that it stops them winning every week.

Similarly, if we're to retain the non-fed rule, it should be justified as preserving identity and localism, rather than the ludicrous idea that protectionism will see our national team start to be more competitive with Australia. The realisation that the talent is spread too thinly and we need to reduce the number of teams in SL to maintain quality was depressingly inevitable.
The more opportunities/higher quality issue reminds me of the childrens' futures/taxes argument between Skinner and Krabappel in the Simpsons.

I would agree that the call for fewer teams was inevitable due to the ‘protectionism’ however it was also necessary to force clubs to get their houses in order in relation to youth development. The argument was that a 19 year old kid with no experience was never going to be better than a 32 year old Aussie with 150 NRL games, however that same 19 year old kid, could, and likely should, be better at 24, with 100 SL games, than the import coming in to replace the outgoing Aussie. That would increase the quality in the league. Not necessarily now, but in 4/5 years. Which it is why it is clearly the right decision to stick with 14 clubs. If anything, we should only increase the number of clubs in the league (obviously not now, but in maybe 3-5 years). I think the quality of youth coming through now, is as good as it was 2000-2003 and better than at any other time in the last probably 15 years.

The problem with the cap is it tries to do too much, it tries to stop wage inflation, it tries to distribute talent, it tries to stop the stacking of talent, it tries to stop clubs overspending. In reality, there is no need for it to do so.

A franchise system where you are in until it become obvious you aren’t going to get it right, would mean clubs would constantly be evaluated and the over-spending part would be monitored and specific to each club. It would be a much better way of stopping clubs over spending.

To stop clubs stacking talent we just require a pretty simple limit on the number of players a club can bring in.

A hard cap does stop wage inflation, but you have to wonder how fair that is on our players and that needs to be looked at. We need to make sure we are balancing the rights and fairness to the players (10 years of the cap not rising isn’t fair on the players imo) who have a short career and don’t always come out of it healthy, with making sure the clubs aren’t forced into paying wages they will never afford.

Talent distribution is another matter, the cap fails miserably to do this. The mechanism for talent distribution can be completely different, but its something very hard to get right, very hard to be fair, and very hard to prove it is fair. Its also very difficult to do because quantifying talent is pretty much impossible to do, but I would be clear in that salary probably isn’t a very accurate measure of talent.

Don't we always?

The point about the flat cap not rising for so long is a good one. But as clubs don't seem to be much better off for it, it has to be about continuing poverty (whatever its cause) rather than growing unfairness.

I think the RFL has to pick some priorities (and by definition de-prioritise some issues) and create a strategy based around achieving certain goals.
Some things might be highly desirable (regularly beating Australia for example), but barely realistic within a sensible time frame (regularly beating Australia for example).
Once we've decided what our priorities are, then policies can be selected accordingly. It might be sensible to retain a salary cap or it might not.
There's a reluctance to make hard choices it seems to me, so none are made and we just drift along rudderless.

More than either of us seem comfortable with



I think there are some things we don’t need to aim for. Things like winning the world cup, regularly beating Australia, winning 4 nations etc etc, come as a natural by product of getting our house in order. If we can get in front of our issues we can put in place virtuous cycles, if we carry on being so reactive we will continue to struggle to break the vicious ones.

Agree 100%

But how to do that is the sticky issue - none of the options are without drawbacks.

We need something root and branch rather than each of us just blaming solely our own bete noire.

But on the narrow issue of the cap, however you juggle it or even if you drop it, the problem comes down to money and simply not having enough big enough clubs.
Mergers won't work due to fan resistance, a very uncompetitive domestic league isn't attractive or helpful in developing players, a tiny league of 8 or 10 teams narrows the sport's base, appeal and opportunities for players and the cap means we lose players (or more than we otherwise might, at least).
It's not an easy balancing act and there really are no silver bullets.

Like most ' rules ' introduced by the RFL , they are so badly thought out ' if at all ' that they are easily abused, hence why they need constant adjustement, about time they got a few ' poachers turned gamekeepers ' in to highlight the frailties before they implement them