But wouldn't it be even more satisfying if that situation was achieved by ALL clubs attempting to raise their game?

I moved towards supporting the salary cap after a couple of years, but since the NRL started cherry-picking as well as RU - and apparently the one they're lining up after Burgess is Bateman - I've been very worried that we're hamstringing ourselves with it.

I feel it's too easy for the lower-end clubs to just bask in the comfort zone of having upper-end clubs restricted by tight regulations. How does that give them any impetus to improve?

If it was up to you we'd all be eating the proverbial scraps off the floor whilst every other sport progresses financially. Just so we can protect a couple of clubs that can barely generate income of any kind. GTF.

Wrong. I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from reading my posts. Why would I be against Super League generating money?

Sports can progress financially whilst still having ALL teams competitive. There are many examples of this - my favourite being Major League Baseball with 20 different winners since 1979 - and that in the land of the free as well. A chain is only as strong as its' weakest link my friend.

Be careful not to stereotype my views just because I would put the health of the overall game ahead of partisan interests.

The problem with your MLB comparison is the amount of people that live in the USA and love the sport. We simply don't have those kind of numbers here. I understand your point of view, but I have to disagree. We will only attract more fans when we can put on show some of the best players in the world.

Take us for example, it is no coincidence that our attendances have decreased ever since Sam left. At the end of the day, fans want to see the best players.

Who on earth is SW looking at in Canada RU or American Poseball? Have I missed yet another memo? Or is he blowing smoke? ([urlhttp://tinyurl.com/ph9vybw[/url)

Odell Beckham Jr we can but dream.

Jarryd Hayne

You don't attribute that to the salary cap do you? HKR have obviously decided to make a stab at getting up there with the big boys as witnessed by the signings they have made.

They also voted in favour of the marquee player rule.

With Koukash at Salford the number of clubs who are basically frightened of the need to find higher wages is down to four. Why Hudds are one I am not quite sure but they seem to be.

HKR have behaved the opposite of the four who voted against.

Unfortunately pro sport has always been about the clubs with the most money being the most successful but it goes further and because the NRL has so much more money than SL it is the more successful league which may be stating the obvious but it is and the best players gravitate to the best clubs and leagues.

So unless we do things like have a marquee player rule we are just going to lose the best players but ultimately even that is only going to get us so far. We need to raise the salary cap. We could have doubled it had the new Sky deal been restricted to the SL clubs but instead the RFL lives in the deluded world we can support 26 teams on various different levels of funding.

Sure if all our best players end up in the NRL you can still have competitive games. You can see competitive game watching Wigan St Pats but if you want to watch top class RL live, you have to pay for it. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys and people won't pay to watch dross even if every game finishes 12-10 or 20-18 or whatever.

I can understand aboveus's concerns, and a better and stronger Wigan side good enough to take on the Roosters and co would be a hollow victory if they only faced four competitive games a year. That said, I doubt the fairly modest change on the table now will have drastic effect one way or another. I don't know what others think, but I quite like seeing a few English players thriving in the NRL; the likes of Hodgson and the Burgess boys. But of course, if every top young talent like Budgie, Makinson, Bateman etc ended up there it would be a big worry.

Seems people love this ruling or hate it in equal measure.

If Sam is our Marquee player then i do hope that the money left in the cap is used to give players like Williams, Rocky, Dom, Manfredi etc an improved contracts and not used to bring in an NRL player on a pension fund holiday. If Sam is not our marquee player then we might have some side next season.

Correct.

I believe our squad is good enough to challenge for honours next year even with no further additions. I wouldn't mind a tough prop or an explosive back rower but give me new deals for Bateman, Sarginson, Charnley, Gelling, Hampshire etc any day.

My thoughts exactly. Is he in with a shot at a gig with the 49ers?

I think he would prefer the Browns.

In part yes I do. I am in favour of a salary cap. Actually I think most fair minded people are if they take the off the blinkers of supporting just one club.

However the Marquee Signing rule is really only tinkering with the cap, and as such I'm not against it. I have posted that earlier, maybe you missed it.

I understand your points, but the logical outcome of your position is that smaller clubs overreach themselves, cease to compete and ultimately go out of business. Rugby League can't be run on those principles in the same way that Professional Football can, because there just aren't enough clubs.

Do you want to see Wigan play Leeds, Saints and Wire on a round robin basis throughout the season? Or even worse do you want to see Wigan cast in the role of Glasgow Celtic with no competitors? (Or even worse than that Wigan as Glasgow Rangers?)

I want to see the best of quality Wigan side as possible and if that ment we where to dominate and win every game and every trophy so be it. It would be the resonsibility of the competition to catch us up

I'd rather see us dominate every week with a squad full of Brett Kennys than be forced into our current mediocrity.

Let's not pretend this cap has been a good thing. It's produced competitiveness at the expense of the proper teams aspirations. In no other walk of life would you keep or let yourself be held at a destitute level if you had the means or ambition to get out of it.

That's exactly what happens now. The have nots are wrongfully holding back the big guns because they know they can't compete. Well sadly that's life - we have more resources, more business acumen and a rich stream of new talent at our disposal.

These small minded few have held the game back long enough imo.

Of course, every fan everywhere in every sport wants their team to dominate, but then there is reality.What do you think will fund this team of Brett Kenny's? Are you of the opinion that Wigan have millions salted away in the bank? Because we sure as hell won't get any funds through the gates we attract.

Do you think a team full of Brett Kenny's will have the crowds flooding back to watch the 'mediocrity' of Super League?

A quick glance at Bilko's site reveals that in Kenny's one season we averaged 10,000 fans. And all through the halcyon days that followed we never averaged the 16,000 that we got in 2011. (By the way there's a myth that Sam Tomkins' leaving affected our attendances - not true. They started to go down in his final season).

I'm afraid that the reality is - Wigan benefit just as much from the cap as the others do. The idea that the likes of Cas and Wakey are stopping us becoming some sort of world force is risible. Get real.

We were a global force in the pre cap era so why couldn't that happen again? Stop selling the club so short and saying things can't be done. We have after all seen some true history defining days in Cherry and White that others said couldn't be done. The potential for this club is unparalleled in the British game. .

There's plenty of benefits and extra revenue streams that are closed off by the cap that could be opened up again (free accommodation, 3rd party payments, image rights etc). You only need the inclusion of three/four top draw players into this side for us to play against anyone without fear.

BTW this just isn't Wigan blinkers either. I'd be happy if someone like the Dr had the balls/vision to want to create something truly special like we did in the 80's.

You've also yet to answer my question why should anyone be allowed to stop him?

You know why. As you alluded to earlier. We fundamentally disagree. You believe in unfettered capitalism, the rule of the free market. I believe in financial constraint for the good of all (I'm exaggerating for the purpose of simplicity - we probably agree on quite a few things).

I think we'll have to agree to differ about the cap. And I guess from the tone of the the thread that most people agree with you - I'll live with that.

like bradford and celtic?

Ahhh socialism.

Aren't we currently renting a football stadium because our business model from them days was unsustainable?

NO

It obviously played it's part but it's obvious that if you spend more than you have things will eventually go wrong.

That being said I think it was more misjudgement/ mismanagement from Wigan. We arguably went too far imo. There were decisions taken such as the signing of Offiah when we already had an adequate player in Myers being a prime example of how not to do it.

Having to cover the cost of a collapsing derelict coal mine also had something to do with it.