So come on then, if Saints and Leeds can do it, why not wigan? Isnt it about time you stopped blaming the salary cap for wigans failings?

Quote ="Charlie Chuck"Can you post a link to the figures to back up your claim ?'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 896583.stm kthxbye

Quote ="Charlie Chuck"Can you post a link to the figures to back up your claim ?'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 896583.stm kthxbye

When did I start blaming the salary cap for Wigan's failings? I blame the SC for many things, but not Wigan's failings.

What things in particular:
[list[*Better competition on the field? With the resulting increases in attendances and viewing figures.[/*:m
[*Emphasis on better off field structures and practices as a route to success?[/*:m[/list:u

looking at the top 4 teams in super league yesterday, st helens, leeds,huddersfield and wakefield, one thing i picked up on was their teams from last week were made up of mainly british players, i think leeds and huddersfield had 4 non british players in their 17's, surely thats got to be applauded

Saints had one yesterday. All fully fit, this would stretch to 3, maybe four.

There were 3 overseas players in Saints side

Correct. I completely forget Flannery is on the field sometimes.

What do you mean by "better competition"? Are you claiming, for example, that games are closer now (a claim that's often made, but for which I have seen no evidence) or are you saying that small clubs can win the SL now (there's no evidence for that whatsover - this is the mythical "level playing field"icon_wink.gif or that smaller clubs have had more top 4 finishes in the last 10 years than they did from 1987-1997 (they haven't).

Surely any increase in attendances is down to better stadia. Isn't that why, for example, Saints crowds are relatively poor whereas an uncompetitive Wigan team has over the last 5 years drawn similar (often larger) crowds than it did in the early 90s?

In relation to off the field structures and practices the world cup has shown just how successful the SC's encouragement of those practices has been. What the SC does is stifle ambition and encourage mediocrity.

I'm saying that games are more competitive and less predicable.



Some clubs have moved to better grounds and seen improvements in their crowds partly due to that. However clubs that have not moved have also seen improvements in their attendances. Viewing figures have also risen which are not affected by the state of grounds. They are linked to how competitive the games are, people want to watch competitive games they don't want to watch uncompetitive games (see CC attendances where games between teams in different divisions have poor attendances as they are highly unlikely to be competitive). As you rightly say Wigan had lower attendances when they were playing in an less competitive league.



The world cup showed how successful the Aussies have been. With their salary cap. Why hasn't it stifled their ambition and encouraged mediocrity there?

One of the big differences was the 50% of turnover rule which limited the spending of 'smaller' clubs stopping them from being competitive. This was maintaining the various tiers in SL. At the top we had the well run clubs spending the full cap. Below them we had the poorly run clubs maintaining their league position due to their spending power, never able to compete with those above but never to be displaced by those below. Below that we had the 'small' clubs who could never bridge that spending gap. Since this has been removed the league is starting to give a truer indication of where various clubs are.

Ah, by competitive you mean that the results are more uncertain. That's an interesting definition - and the lack of certainty of results is something I haven't seen a great deal of evidence for - and of course in any event a league of mediocre teams would tend to produce less predictable results.

I'd like to see a league that was more competitive because the weaker teams had got stronger, rather than because standards have been dumbed down...

Supporters of the SC should also be careful about claims of "competitiveness" and the notorious "level playing field" claim (you haven't made this laughable claim but many of your less sensible fellow SC supporters have done so may times on "Cherry&Whine"icon_wink.gif because if you look back at the top 4 since the SC came in it has been far more dominated by big clubs than it was in the late 80s and early-mid 90s. If the play-off system had been in place then we'd have undoubtedly seen at least the odd small/medium sized club making it to a GF, rather than it being the big club closed shop of the SL era.



Not sure what your evidence is for improvements in crowds being down to the "competitiveness" of SL.

I didn't say that Wigan had lower attendances when playing in a less competitive league, I said that a less competitive Wigan team has drawn bigger crowds than it did in the early 90s. That's down to the better facilities at the JJB.

People want to watch competitive games but that is only part of the picture - they want good facilities and of course they want to feel they are watching a quality product. The championship in soccer is probably a more "competitive" league than the premiership but a small premiership club will always get big crowds for games against Man U, Liverpool etc because people want to see quality, even if their own team doesn't stand much of a chance.






Ah, the Australian SC argument. This is one which is often deployed by SC supporters. Unfortunately it falls down for a number of reasons, firsly because the star players of big clubs can earn lots of money via the vastly higher media profile of RL in Australia, secondly because the talent pool is so much wider that spreading players around all the clubs doesn't lead to mediocrity, the whole environment in which it operates is different.

I'm puzzled by your second comment. The 50% cap rule has gone which means that small clubs can overspend and get into financial difficulties. Wasn't the SC originally supposed to be about eliminating financial problems from the game (well, lets forget about the Gateshull fiasco, London's repeared crises and Bradford's current predicaement...

)?

The only thing more bizarre than this was the ludicrous 20/25 rule which penalised clubs developing players and was indirectly age discriminatory in that it meant that the salaries of young players were artifically depressed.

And while we're on the subject of player salaries, there's been a fair bit of inflation over the last 5 years or so, and gates have been improving at a lot of clubs. Now I understand that the better facilities which have driven the improvements need to be paid for but it seems very wrong to be that the SC hasn't been increased in line with wage inflation. But then again this just shows that the SC was never really about fairness... just about dumbing down standards...

Good. Because that's where we are heading with the salary cap. No-one's making the top teams weaker we are just creating a environment where weaker clubs can become strong (by removing one obstacle to that).



You get lower crowds and viewing figures for non competitive games. You get higher crowds and viewing figures for competitive games. We have been getting higher crowds and viewing figures.



That's a shame. It was a good point. Things were worse for everyone (including Wigan) in the less competitive pre-salary cap era.



Good point on the talent pool. If we are to improve we need to grow our talent pool. With all clubs spending the same on salaries clubs have to look at developing their own talented players in order to be successful. And those players need to play with and against top players in competitive games week in, week out to improve. Having our top players play a handful of competitive games each year does not and has not enable us to improve.



The 50% rule was holding clubs back, stopping them from competing. Spending the same amount as your rivals enables you to be competitive. Similarly without a fixed salary cap clubs are held back from competing for the same reasons.



Paying players more will not make them better players.

Some interesting points there, though the standard of the debate would be higher if you didn't attempt to misquote me/agree with points I haven't actually made!

Do you really think the top teams aren't weaker now than they were say 4 or 5 years ago (lets leave the 90s out of it for a moment)? I'd say that the Bradford 2005 team for example was much stronger than the current Saints and Leeds teams.

Your second point is that you get bigger crowds for competitive games. Its obviously a lot more complex a picture than that, especially as by "competitive" you seem to mean simply unpredictable results, rather than for example smaller clubs finishing towards the top of the table (as they used to regularly pre-SC) instead of the league being dominated by big clubs.

The point I was making was that Wigan were far more competitive than they are now - we had world class side with a real chance of winning competitions in those days, which is far more attractive to spectators than watching an average team which wins 50% of its games. I note you ignored the comparison I made with football regarding the desire of spectators to watch quality players.

Thank you for acknowledging that I made a good point on the talent pool. Since there are lots of good Aussie players there will always be a nucleus of quality at each club. We simply don't have that at the moment in this country and its no use pretending that we do. Instead of having four or five strong teams the thin talent pool is spread much wider, leaving only two decent sides in SL.

Your argument on the 50% cap ducks the question of the financial strain that overspending will put on smaller clubs. Competition will occur if clubs are incentivised to grow their revenue and develop players.

In an ideal world I'd like clubs to be forced to take responsibility for their actions, that's why I'd want to work towards the abolition of the SC.

In the meantime I'd like to see the 50% cap being reintroduced and the hard cap abolished.

At the very least clubs should be rewarded for developing youth players by having all or part of their salary disregarded for the purpose of the cap.

Even those who believe in the SC must in all honesty acknowledge its flaws.

There are intelligent posters such as the Saints supporting Phil P who have done so on "Cherry&Whine".

Sadly however, people like Phil P are rare and most pro-SC people come across as fanatics because they won't even acknowledge that the SC is flawed. It could work so much better to protect clubs from getting into financial difficulties like London and Bradford (for example why don't the RL make clubs submit business plans and financial forecasts at the start of each year and police them along with the live cap).

The failure to engage on these pretty obvious problems leads many of us to believe that many of those supporting the status quo have a vested interest in doing so.

I have to say with your final comment I am beginning to think that you fall into this camp. I fail to see how anyone can defend the way players pay has been held down. I note that you haven't attempted to engage on this - because of course it is indefensible - but have attempted a distraction by making a frankly absurd comment. Presumably this is a joke. You can't of course think that employers get nothing out of rewarding and incentivising their workers or that workers will continue to work just as hard despite being paid less and less in real terms.

They are better.



By competitive I mean there being a decent chance of any team being able to win a game. The idea that there are big clubs and small clubs is in itself a problem. That small clubs finished higher in the league when there was only one big club is irrelevant.
The aim has to be 14 big clubs. All developing their own players. And all those players playing in high intensity competitive matches each week. That is the only way to raise standards. Until we get there we wont be able to compete at the highest level internationally.



The Wigan team weren't competing with anyone. That's the point and that's why attendances were lower. Competition is far more attractive than walk overs. Of course people want to watch higher quality players, more people watch SL matches than Championship matches. People also want to watch equally matched teams, fewer people watch SL teams play Championship teams in the CC.



Which is why we need incentives to increase that pool. The Salary Cap allows teams to be rewarded for developing their own players with on field success.



The 50% cap was a necessary evil. I hope that the decision to remove it was made in the knowledge that it could be done without causing financial problems for any of clubs in SL. The point remains that it was holding clubs back and preventing them and the league from improving. That is the natural state when there is a disparity in the salary expenditure between teams (regardless of the disparity being the result of a variable cap or no cap - it's bad either way).



Which are?



Players are not poorly paid. Teams should have appropriate wage structures in place to allow them to reward their players. I believe that Leeds are rightly proud of theirs. The salary cap encourages this good practice.

Its an absolute myth that Wigan had no competition through the glory years that has taken on some perversion acceptance of truth through constant repetition over the years.

Here are the facts from the final league tables for the CC winning era;
1987-88 - Third place - behind St. Helens on points difference and 4pts behind Widnes.
1988-89 - Runner up by 3pts to Widnes.
1989-90 - League champions by 4pts from Leeds.
1990-91 - League champions by 2pts from Widnes.
1991-92 - League champions by 4pts from St. Helens.
1992-93 - League champions by points difference from St. Helens.
1993-94- League champions by points difference from Bradford & Warrington.
1994-95 - League champions by 7 pts over Leeds.

Aside from 1994-95 - that looks like a fair amount of competition from clubs at the top of the table to me - only one uncompetitive season in 1994-95.

Compare that to St. Helens regular season's over the previous similar period in SL;
2002 - Minor premiers on points difference from Bradford.
2003 - 4th (with 2pt deduction) - 13pts behind Bradford.
2004 - 5th - 15pts behind Leeds (minor premiers)
2005 - Minor premiers by 3pts over Leeds.
2006 - Minor premiers by 8pts over Hull.
2007 - Minor premier by 1pt over Leeds.
2008 - Minor premiers by 1pt over Leeds.
2009 - Current league leaders.

So apart from a two season blip, one team has been comparably dominant during the league campaign over a similar period in SL with a salary cap, as to the era before it, despite the perceived benefits of increased competitiveness and the supposed lack of competition previously. They've also won 4 Challenge Cups in the same period (and been in 5 finals) compared to Wigan's 7.

The Salary Cap is clearly working.

f*cking hell some of you dont half like to write lengthy passages!

You find reading difficult?

Not at all, I achieved an A grade in A-Level English Language. I just find the efforts some put in rather impressive. Why, do you?

Excellent post. Many pro-cappers simply trot out the same kind of myths and propaganda lines with no evidence to back them up. In fact the evidence works against them, though that doesn't stop them from constantly repeating their propaganda.

That's why I draw a distinction between the fanatic majority of pro-cappers who resort to urban myths and legends, insults, irrelevancies and anti-Wigan jibes and the minority (and sadly it would appear that it is a tiny minority of pro-cappers on this website) of intelligent and rational posters like Phil P, who do believe in the cap and whether you agree with them or not they are to engage in a sensible debate and acknowledge that there are issues with the cap, whilst defending the overall principle. (Just as I am ready to, and have acknowledged, that there are issues with a total abolition and leaving clubs to spend what they like - frankly the clubs can't be trusted to run their own financial affairs, which is why I would like to see tighter monitoring of all aspects of club finances, whilst allowing clubs to grow based on a % turnover type test.)

Here's another piece of evidence, one of the few studies that have actually been carried out into the "competitiveness" myth:

[urlhttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/25/1030053009801.html[/url

Since I don't think that given the different profile of the game over there you can actually make strong comparisons between the SL and the NRL I don't tend to throw this into the debate unless provoked by the "Aussies have a salary cap and that's why they are so competitive" propaganda line.

Going back to your excellent post, what's also interesting about the time periods you picked is that in the early 90s smaller clubs regularly featured in the top 4. If Wakey or Hudds manage to do so this year they will be breaking a decade long big club stanglehold on the top 4, a very bad advertisement for the even competition that the SC is alleged by its fanatic supporters to have brought us.

This thread is a dream to the muppet Wiganers who believe the salary cap is the sole reason behind their demise.

Nothing to do with the mis management of the club whatsoever and the fact they spend the same as the other sides.

Are you suggesting that Saints are dominating a competition they have won once in the last six years?



Yup.

Not sure who the "muppet Wiganers" you are referring to are, but you won't find many posts on "Cherry&Whine" blaming the SC as the sole cause of our alleged "demise". (Interesting expression that for a club that has in revent years proved to have the most loyal and, despite poor results, the second largest fanbase in SL, many clubs would love to suffer a "demise" like ours, but never mind...

)

We all know what the mismanagement issues are. The way the Wigan club has been run over the last 10 years and the failure of the SC are two different issues, however much you try to link them.

Not interested cockle, rock on with your great crowds and rubbish results.

What the increase of crowds AFTER moving into better stadia? If it was just down to better stadia, how come crowds are still improving at certain clubs? If it was just down to stadia, how come Huddersfield have gone from 3k to 8k, Wigan from 10k to 15k, Hull 10k to 14k, etc.?

And what about the improving crowds of clubs that don't have decent stadia? Wakefield have gone from 3k to nearly 7k for example.

Stadia act as catalysts for crowd improvement, yes. But to argue that improving crowds is just down to better facilities is lunacy as there are clearly far more factors than that, otherwise crowds would only improve if teams moved into new grounds.

You were the one that mentioned "demise", so clearly you are interested in attacking Wigan, if not in a rational debate on the SC.