Quote ="Cruncher"I absolutely agree with the bit I've underlined. I've never been a fan of the salary cap per se, and I totally believe that it was introduced to peg Wigan back - not to even the playing field, but specifically to undermine a Wigan club who had just acquired a very rich owner in Dave Whelan - and I'd be strongly in favour of moderating it so that those who really try to contribute to the game get rewarded. I'd also be dead keen to hear about any realistic and constructive alternative - I genuinely would, as I too believe that drastic action is now necessary to save us.
However, the exchange of views I engaged in earlier was in response to a rather spurious accusation that IL, by voting to keep the Salary Cap, was responsible for the game's decline (which frankly was no more than a flimsy attempt to cast yet more aspersions on him). The situation is nothing like that simple. If anything, I'd argue that IL's attitude is actually in response to the game's decline.
Until we find ways to pay more, as you yourself say, it could be that clubs have no option but to maintain the Salary Cap as it is because they can see how parlous the game's financial state is. Their chairmen are much closer to the books than we are, and they know who can and can't afford to compete. If there are lot more who can't than can, then we are in real trouble.
The other problem is that, even if we had an unlimited cap, what kind of fees would seriously be required to keep the likes of Sam away from the new-look NRL? Not only would we need to improve on the massive cash they can flaunt, but we'd have to make it worth his while to remain in our failing competition and stay away from the Sydney lifestyle and a league which now really is the best and most exciting in the world, and where British players are at last getting respect on a national stage. You can imagine the field-day the likes of Sam's agent would have if he could ask for anything he wanted.
It's a nightmarish mess, but to lay it at the door of the Wigan chairman because he cast one of several votes to keep our cap at a manageable level is a bit ridiculous.
[uHas he damaged the game by letting Sam go? Maybe. I think all losses of great players damage the game - the NRL is a much bigger problem for us than Union ever was, because players defecting to the NRL maintain respect [/u- but it may also be that by allowing Sam to go a year early, we're in a better position to keep others. It's all about balancing the books and not getting into debt - even with no cap, we'd have that consideration.'"
Maintain respect? Not sure what you mean here.
Sam is a RL player, way more suited to RL than RU (though imo he will go in the future to try it out)
Josh would fit into RU like a glove and I can see him going very soon.
No-one is laying all the blame for the CC at the feet of IL, that would be silly.
HOWEVER, he did vote for the status quo so must share some of the blame.
As DeanoG says the CC is symptomatic of the attitude of the RFL in general.
'"
