Oh i agree it's not perfect but what i'm trying to point out is it's a starting point and something we've failed to do even tho we've been professional for a hell of a lot longer.

But that was because you had literally hundreds of RU clubs who, by nature of the advent of professionalism, were all at the same stage in their development as each other and therefore the strongest rose to the top; the number of clubs getting A, or even B, franchise 'grades' tells you everything about the overall strength in depth of RL in this country.

Still, I'm of the opinion that we should just get on with things and start concentrating on the on-field product again (no matter how painful that may be at times!) and stop concentrating so much on stadia, attendances etc. As for youth development, well the pro clubs contribute largely bugger all to a young players development, so I've no idea why so much importance is placed on it anyroad.

Granted the local teams put the foundations in for youth development but clubs such when a young player joins one of Wigan, Leeds and Saints it's when the real progress starts to happen.

You only have to look at some of the players in the space of a year or two after they have received top level training to see the level of change.

Surly it’s better to have 14 top teams with excellent academies than 14 team with three top academies right?

Of course it is, but it's no coincidence that the areas with the strongest amateur sides are generally the ones where the SL clubs 'produce' the talent. Granted, scholarship players receive extra training etc, but it's hardly the Premier League where every club has a team from Under 9's upwards, playing against other academies.

Not wanting to burst anyone's rose tinted bubble but as I said yesterday, union is struggling at club level even in rugby mad places like New Zealand.
[urlhttp://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKSP47707220090620[/url

This thread has deviated all over the place as people try to convince others of their argument. Mostly, it degenerates into a pro/anti cap stance that has been done to death.

For me, we need a cap to protect clubs, not to even out the playing field. A cap based on turnover is a sensible business move that still allows investors to plough money into our sport. Is the existence of the cap responsible for the quality of the game today? Maybe to a small extent.

Other factors certainly have had an impact, not least refereeing standards/interpretation and rule changes. IMO, for example, not every tackle above the shoulders needs to be a penalty. We see lots of pens for so-called dangerous tackles yet the trainers are on the pitch less than they ever were.The decision to automatically add a sin bin onto penalties against a kicker is spoiling the game, as is the rule about tackling in mid air and turning players through the horizontal. For example, if a player is 4 feet in the air and has his legs swept from under him that is foul play, but why does it class as the same offence if he is just inches of the ground and is simply knocked onto his back just like a normal tackle? Similarly, if a player just happens to be lifted but is then let down instead of being drilled into the floor that should be play on IMO.

There have been other (non-violent!) issues/interpretations that have conspired to ruin the game too. Remember all the rubbish about obstruction/shepherding a while back?

Also, the number of imports - and their quality - has been a crucial contributor IMO - and our club is as guilty as any. Our disgraceful performance in the World Cup still rankles with me and is possibly contributing to my general dissatisfaction with the product on offer.

A bit of a rant, I know, but IMO the game is not as watchably as it was for various reasons, not just the Cap. Sky's last 2 offerings sadly confirmed this, littered as they were with dropped ball, passes along the floor, etc, etc. Give me NRL any day of the week.

If the ambition of Super League clubs are stifled by having a salary cap, resulting in them playing in front of lower crowds than what they should be doing, how come Leicester don't seem to be stifled by having to play under a salary cap themsleves?

The cap should be based on turnover. Then, in order to compete clubs would have to market themselves correctly and fill their grounds week in week out (or close to it)

Now, clubs can survive on 3-4k attendances because they know they can spend the same amount as everyone else and so won't be held back by their sh*t support and lack of marketing/creativity.

I'd be very surprised if the clubs on 3-4k average attendances were operating at anywhere near the cap level of the top clubs.

I'm anti-CC but I certainly don't blame it for all the problems of SL, far from it. The game is very badly run on many fronts.

The reason that the debate gets so entrenched though isn't the fault of the anti-CC posters on threads like these.

Few people who oppose the CC believe there should be no financial controls on clubs. Iindeed one of the criticism made by anti-CC people is that the CC hasn't worked well in terms of protecting clubs from financial mismanagement. That doesn't mean a return to unlimited spending, but a better system of regulation.

Unfortunately the pro-CC people by contrast like to paint things in very simplistic terms (with one or two exceptions, people like Phil P, to be fair). The vast majority of pro-CC posters try to make things out to be absolute, either you're for the CC in its current form or you want it totally abolished. The other common strategy, and we've seen it on this thread, of pro-CC posters is to claim that anti-CC people are solely Wigan fans and solely motivated by a desire to return to a situation where "Wigan buy everyone" etc. Any Wigan fan will tell you that IL is very unlikely to spend irresponsibly, so this argument doesn't hold water either.

What is obvious though is that the Wigan haters and those who believe the CC has benefited their club (many Saints fans) will do anything to protect it. This means they will not engage in debate about reforming the cap system and means, unfortunately, that we get bizarre rants clogging up the board, instead of sensible debate. You only have to look at the nonsense on this thread to see that this is the case.

In relation to refereeing standards, rule changes etc you are right that these things need to be looked at. To me the game is just duller now than it was a few years ago. A good friends of mine who is a general sports fan rather than a RL fan told me the other day that he longer watches RL on Sky. When I asked why they said that the games were boring these days. Sadly I have to say that I feel the same. This weekends televised matches were really poor. That isn't the fault of the CC (though its proponents claim the alleged unpredictability of games due to the CC makes it more exciting!).