Cap of £700,000?!?! FFS thats pathetic.....surely that wasnt right....its even more riddiculous than now!

I thought it had been 1.6m for the whole time its been in.

I do agree with part of the salary cap idea to keep teams from going bust, but it should be 50% of turnover, which would encourage the game to grow, and mean that teams like salford, london, wakefield etc. would have to shape up or ship out...at the moment rugby league is being held back by teams like this who lack effort and ambition to ever move beyond our status of a part time sport!

I reckon the decline is probably more to do with you making things up.

In 1996 there were 12 teams in Super League including Paris whom were basically all non-british. So for 300 British plyers in SL that would mean that each club had approx 27 British players each. To do this you would be counting probably a squad of 32 players for each team. If you did the same now in Super League I bet you'd come up with 300 British players.

Mind you don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Ask the RFL for the figures then.

At last! You're right about something! Congratulations! I should have put the parenthesis somewhere else. Fantastic, well done.

Instead of picking out typos, it would have been better if you'd answered the question about top Kiwis playing here rather than the NRL. According to the pro-CC propagandists on this board the CC is tighter over there than here meaning that all the top Kiwis should be here. They aren't, because of course the CC works very differently in Australia where top players can make lots of money from their media profiles, not that this stops the pro-CC propagandists from making misleading comparisons with the Australian system.... though actually what evidence there is is actually against the cap working over there in any case...

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

Why when it was you that was quoting them to support your argument.

What I have done is quickly checked through the RL Stas section of this site and see that comparing 12 teams (discounting Celtic and Catalans to provide a like for like 12 teams against 12 teams comparison) you have an average of 20 British players in a average squad of 27 players. This is nigh on three quarters of all players being British.

Obviously this cannot be compared to your figure of 300 as that allowing for no-imports would give an average squad of 30 players which I'm sure you'll agree is just Fantasy Island type stats. Where did you get these figures from? Are you sure you haven't made them up?

I have just checked the figures from 2000 and the total number of British players is un-changed to the figure this season whilst as a percentage of the toral the number of British is higher now than in 2000.

Based on your figures then Father Ted (are you sure that you're not Dougal using Ted's user name?) between 1996 and 2000 the number of British players halfed!!!!!!!! That would be akin to rugby league's version of the effect of the potato famine on Ireland which I'm sure yourself as Father Ted is well aware of.

A typo? What was it you meant to spell?




Did you stop reading my reply at that point?

Quote ="Billinge_Lump"A typo? What was it you meant to spell? '" I said typo, not mispelling. Try looking up the meaning of typography on www.dictionary.com. I put the parentheses (the words in brackets) in the wrong place. That is a typographical error. Quote ="Billinge_Lump"Did you stop reading my reply at that point?'" Oh dear. If you're referring to the point you made about the NZ Warriors, then yes, its had some effect, playing for that team will have an attraction. But if you're suggesting that this is the reason why top Kiwi players aren't interested in SDL then really that is a totally insufficient answer. To be honest I'm surprised you came back on this point. Here is the NZ World Cup squad (source - [urlhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10536251[/url) which shows how attractive the NRL is despite the allegedly lower money on offer there compared with the SDL under the CC: Nathan Cayless (Parramatta, captain), Adam Blair (Melbourne), Greg Eastwood (Brisbane), David Fa'alogo (South Sydney), Nathan Fien (New Zealand Warriors), Dene Halatau (Wests Tigers), Lance Hohaia (NZ Warriors), Krisnan Inu (Parramatta), David Kidwell (South Sydney), Thomas Leuluai (Wigan), Jeff Lima (Melbourne), Issac Luke (South Sydney), Simon Mannering (NZ Warriors), Sika Manu (Melbourne), Benji Marshall (Wests Tigers), Steve Matai (Manly), Sam Perrett (Sydney Roosters), Sam Rapira (NZ Warriors), Jerome Ropati (NZ Warriors), Setaimata Sa (Sydney Roosters), Jeremy Smith(Melbourne), Iosia Soliola (Sydney Roosters), Manu Vatuvei (NZ Warriors), Brent Webb (Leeds). The conclusion that could be drawn from all this is that the SDL is unattractive not just financially but also because of the mediocre standard of rugby being played in the Sooper Dooper League. Many comments were made in the media by Aussies and Kiwis during and after the last world cup to the effect that we had lost our way in the UK (Stuart being the most famous example, he's on record as saying we've gone backwards in the last 8-10 years). (They're right, of course. The SDL has gone backwards. The structures in the UK, including the CC (its not the sole cause but is a key factor) need radical change. That won't happen as long as the RL establishment and the blinkered fans of certain clubs refuse to contemplate a change to the status quo.) That's why I'm surprised that you raised this point again, its a strange thing to do for a CC supporter who thinks all is rosy in the Sooper Dooper garden...

Quote ="Billinge_Lump"A typo? What was it you meant to spell? '" I said typo, not mispelling. Try looking up the meaning of typography on www.dictionary.com. I put the parentheses (the words in brackets) in the wrong place. That is a typographical error. Quote ="Billinge_Lump"Did you stop reading my reply at that point?'" Oh dear. If you're referring to the point you made about the NZ Warriors, then yes, its had some effect, playing for that team will have an attraction. But if you're suggesting that this is the reason why top Kiwi players aren't interested in SDL then really that is a totally insufficient answer. To be honest I'm surprised you came back on this point. Here is the NZ World Cup squad (source - [urlhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10536251[/url) which shows how attractive the NRL is despite the allegedly lower money on offer there compared with the SDL under the CC: Nathan Cayless (Parramatta, captain), Adam Blair (Melbourne), Greg Eastwood (Brisbane), David Fa'alogo (South Sydney), Nathan Fien (New Zealand Warriors), Dene Halatau (Wests Tigers), Lance Hohaia (NZ Warriors), Krisnan Inu (Parramatta), David Kidwell (South Sydney), Thomas Leuluai (Wigan), Jeff Lima (Melbourne), Issac Luke (South Sydney), Simon Mannering (NZ Warriors), Sika Manu (Melbourne), Benji Marshall (Wests Tigers), Steve Matai (Manly), Sam Perrett (Sydney Roosters), Sam Rapira (NZ Warriors), Jerome Ropati (NZ Warriors), Setaimata Sa (Sydney Roosters), Jeremy Smith(Melbourne), Iosia Soliola (Sydney Roosters), Manu Vatuvei (NZ Warriors), Brent Webb (Leeds). The conclusion that could be drawn from all this is that the SDL is unattractive not just financially but also because of the mediocre standard of rugby being played in the Sooper Dooper League. Many comments were made in the media by Aussies and Kiwis during and after the last world cup to the effect that we had lost our way in the UK (Stuart being the most famous example, he's on record as saying we've gone backwards in the last 8-10 years). (They're right, of course. The SDL has gone backwards. The structures in the UK, including the CC (its not the sole cause but is a key factor) need radical change. That won't happen as long as the RL establishment and the blinkered fans of certain clubs refuse to contemplate a change to the status quo.) That's why I'm surprised that you raised this point again, its a strange thing to do for a CC supporter who thinks all is rosy in the Sooper Dooper garden...

If you doubt the figures then check with the RFL.
I've written to the RFL about them quoting as I've done in this thread.
The RFL people that have replied are the highest ranking there and they agreed with the figures I suggested. They agreed with my figures for when SL started in 1996 to two years ago.
They have also agreed with them when I've been to fans forums and the RFL people have been on the platform.
No one at the RFL doubted my figures quite the opposite.
So if you doubt them then that's up to you!

Where did you get the figures from?

Not doubting they're correct, they just don't seem to make any sense.

Its not really up to me to "doubt" them because I am actually, I believe, dis-proving them using factual data.

If you are bothered enough to do all the above I wouldn't have thought actually nipping across to the RL Stats section of this site and counting the British players there for 2000 and 2009 is too much of a chore.

Do you accept that it does not seem correct that in 1996 each team on average had 27 / 28 British Players.

In 1996, Saints had Matautua, McVey, Perelini and Veivers who were not British, so unless their squad was 31/32 players they did not have 27/28 British players......

I suggest you actually look at who played for each Club rather than making up "facts".

If you want to know if the standard has gone backwards, I suggest you compare the squads of the top team of 1996 (Saints) with that of the top team of last year (Leeds/Saints).

Quote ="Deano G"icon_confused.gif: I said typo, not mispelling. Try looking up the meaning of typography on www.dictionary.com. I put the parentheses (the words in brackets) in the wrong place. That is a typographical error. '" Really? Where did you mean to put it? I took your advice by the way, Quote ="Dictionary.com"Typographical error - an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard, from mechanical failure, or the like.'" Did you have a major mechanical failure in typing the name of an Aussie when talking about Kiwis? Quote Oh dear. If you're referring to the point you made about the NZ Warriors, then yes, its had some effect, playing for that team will have an attraction. But if you're suggesting that this is the reason why top Kiwi players aren't interested in SDL then really that is a totally insufficient answer. To be honest I'm surprised you came back on this point.'" Ah so it's not solely down to the cap then? So you agree with the point I was making in that it isn't down to the cap alone then? Quote That's why I'm surprised that you raised this point again, its a strange thing to do for a CC supporter who thinks all is rosy in the Sooper Dooper garden...'" Where and when did I say that? If you're going to resort to making things up...

Quote ="Deano G"icon_confused.gif: I said typo, not mispelling. Try looking up the meaning of typography on www.dictionary.com. I put the parentheses (the words in brackets) in the wrong place. That is a typographical error. '" Really? Where did you mean to put it? I took your advice by the way, Quote ="Dictionary.com"Typographical error - an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard, from mechanical failure, or the like.'" Did you have a major mechanical failure in typing the name of an Aussie when talking about Kiwis? Quote Oh dear. If you're referring to the point you made about the NZ Warriors, then yes, its had some effect, playing for that team will have an attraction. But if you're suggesting that this is the reason why top Kiwi players aren't interested in SDL then really that is a totally insufficient answer. To be honest I'm surprised you came back on this point.'" Ah so it's not solely down to the cap then? So you agree with the point I was making in that it isn't down to the cap alone then? Quote That's why I'm surprised that you raised this point again, its a strange thing to do for a CC supporter who thinks all is rosy in the Sooper Dooper garden...'" Where and when did I say that? If you're going to resort to making things up...

I think that was his point...

I'm absolutely baffled by Father Ted's claims here on this point. What you have said Paul is spot on, it is just a ludicrous claim.

I suspect that the RFL just didn't bother getting into a discussion with him.

Let's not forgt that at the start of SL, London Broncos were generally all foriegners.

This would generally mean that this lst of 'well over 300' would be effectively from 10 teams.

That is simply nonsense.

Also, looking back at 2007 stats, using a squad of no more than 25 for each team, there were about 185 English players in SL (an average of around 17 each for the 11 UK based teams.

Great post DeanoG.


In this months RLW Garry Scholfield also chips in, backing up the argument.


Frankly the CC supporters haven't a leg to stand on. (as if they ever did).


This pathetic Communist/Socialist "greater good" argument is more tired than it has ever been.

Ah, where Tweedledee appears, Tweedledum is sure to follow...

Is the feel good factor back in pie town- Nobby is the best and SL has never been better

Another stunningly intellectual post from BL.


Still for a man who keeps a clearly drunken and misquoted post in his sig, what more can you expect?


I believe the phrase

"You're PWNED and you know you are"

is appropriate in such circumstances.

Well done on winning your cup final last week

Oh and enjoy the spanking off hull kr

We're the bestest in all the land after beating the mighty Salford



In all seriousness we were the pits in the first half and Salford were even worse. In the 2nd half we were decent and Salford managed to be even worse then the first half.

Stick my my assesment from last week that the leagues full of average teams and at it's lowest point of the superleague era but again watching the likes of Tomkins, Myler, McILorum and Ratchford in action at least gives you hope we can move it forward at a pace.

Indeed, BK.

Sadly, BL is an individual who would rather debate where I should have placed some words in brackets in a sentence in a pathetic attempt at point scoring than engage on the real issues. Mind you, he hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to the real issues so all we can expect are attempts at muddying the waters...

BL, like many pro-CC people is unable to acknowledge that situations may result from a number of factors.

No cap sceptic says that the CC is responsible for ALL the problems that RL faces in the UK. The CC is only part of the problem.

Cap sceptics acknowledge that the issues are complex.

That doesn't mean the CC isn't a very serious problem; the CC is causing real damage to our game.

Pro-CC propagandists on the other hand like to pretend everything is simple. The playing field is level; the CC is "fair"; Wigan bought success and want to do so again etc etc etc.

In this vein BL says that the NZ Warriors are the reason that top Kiwis don't come over here in numbers any more. I've acknowledged - in the usual rational way that cap sceptics engage in debates on this board - that the existence of the NZ Warriors team may have some effect, but then have presented evidence (the WC squad list) that shows that the majority of the Kiwi squad came from Aussie teams, with only 2 players in the SDL. The position is clear. Whilst the NZ Warriors team has attracted a significant number of top Kiwis, the Aussie teams in the NRL seem to be able to attract the majority of these players. The Sooper Dooper League by contrast has only 2 squad members. The facts speak for themselves.

BL - unable or unwilling to debate the substantive issue - responds by querying the meaning of typographical error. (To answer his extraordinarily tedious and irrelevant point, the words in brackets in my original post should have either followed the word "Bell" or I should have shuffled the list around so that the Kiwis were listed first with Meninga and Kenny at the end and the words in brackets following the list of Kiwis and preceding Big Mal and Brett. Working in an office environment such a typsetting error - putting the words in the wrong order - would be considered a "typo". The lengthier definition on dictionary.com of "typography" makes this clear. Though in any event the meaning was straightforward and only someone with an axe to grind would have assumed that I was intending to suggest that the Aussie legend Mal Meninga was a Kiwi...



)

Game set and match. You've won if Gary Schofield is backing up your argument.

Does he also explain how Super League clubs were averaging 27 British players in 1996 as well? Or is that too tricky a question to do anything about but ignore?

Ofc you could always try to answer the points posed.


But then again that would require a certain level of intelligence that you have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you simply do not possess.

How can I answer why the salary cap isn't to blame for the number of British players dropping from 300 in 1996's Super League to less than half that figure now when both figures are clearly made up?