There are two different issues to the salary cap - as a way of stopping clubs overspending I'm in favour of the original 50% of income rule, but as a way of increasing competition it hasn't and won't work, and just holds back the clubs with a good financial structure in place (including a good junior system, reducing the need for expensive signings). I like the fact that this new marquee rule distinguishes between home grown players and signings, for that reason.

One of the things always mentioned in this debate is that the clubs with a good system of producing youngsters shouldn't be held back by those who don't produce players. But it's not as simple as that is it?

For example. If you lived in Wakefield say and your son had Wakey, Leeds and Wigan knocking on your door. Who would you advise him to sign for? So the big clubs are usually able to hoover up all the talent to the detriment of the smaller ones.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the above scenario but you can see how the home club, in this instance, through no fault of their own, lose talent on their own doorstep.

GH will not break the bank to sign a marquee player even though the club are the richest in SL
It's more likely going to one of our home grown players IF any of them earn over £100k ?

Too bad we can't afford any of them.

Equally Widnes cas or Wakefield could discover the next Andy Farrell / Kieron Cunningham but due to SOME clubs extra spending power are now even more likely to lose him than they already would be.
Capitalism all the way?

Without a shadow of a doubt.

The best players want to play for the biggest sides imo.

I'm a firm believer that what's best for the big sides is best for the league. ATEOTD it's the big sides that push the envelope, it's the big sides that invest heavily in academics and training facilities. It's sides like Wigan that heavily scout none traditional areas like South Wales.

It might sound harsh but if the CC cup final is on BBC who do you think the casual fan or the first time sports fan would tune in to watch - Wakefield vs Huddersfield or one of the big four playing each other? Likewise who would you tune in to Barcelona vs Madrid or two mid table sides?

Our big sides are our cash cows. Outside of individuals they are our greatest marketing assets imo.

What they tune in to watch is a competitive game- regardless of which name is there. What we need are more teams able to be competitive. That won't happen whilst those already competitive have the ability to prevent others from competing with them- which is what Wigan did for years- and are now continuing to try and do. I'm alright Jack mentality. The poster above was spot on with their comment regarding youth. They already cherry pick the best players- this rule just gives them more ability to do it.
What we don't want is the SPL. Because that will lose revenue across the game.

Ten years ago, Wigan could have been relegated... Lets not dwell on the reasons for that being avoided, but they turned it around.... It seems that some clubs just want to make excuses for failure to compete, rather than sorting themselves out and being a success.

Lets have a race to the top, not a race to the bottom!

It seems to me that the divide between the top clubs and the bottom clubs has continued, despite the salary cap. Other than holding back the top clubs, it has done nothing to bring the bottom clubs up to the level of the top clubs, but has brought the top clubs down to the mediocre standard of rugby league we see most weeks.

Clubs are now competing to win Superleague instead of aiming to be the best rugby league club in the world. If the marquee player rule helps to improve the standard of rugby league in our competition then I'm all for it. Competitive games are great but not if the standard of rugby is poor.

Tough shiit. Widnes, Cas and Wakefield's backroom staff need to work harder on their commercials so that if/when they produce the next AF/KC, they have got the £ to keep him.

If another club didn't pick them off, Yawnion would. What's worse?

Simple capitalism yes.

I fail to see how this ruling brings up the standard of rugby league.



They turned it around because they had the history, staff and cash, to (cheat) to do so. If Wigan had been bottom half of the table for the previous 15 seasons and won nothing- do you think their ability to "turn it around" would be the same?
"Failure to compete" is an easy phrase to come up with when you've not had to fight to become competitive for years. How much easier is it for Wigan to secure sponsorship money, Wigan to secure players, wigan to secure the best coaching staff, wigan to secure the best marketing staff, Wigan to secure the best back room staff, Wigan to entice the best youngsters to their club and keep them than those you are accusing of "failing to compete" It's not a level playing field so it's not "failure to compete" it's failure to have the same benefits as others in order to compete!!!
If the RFL had gone ahead with their draft system it may have been different.

What draft system would that be?

Draft system? Are you joking?

That's just an easy option for those clubs that can't be bothered to do anything to just get another free ride.

I do find it amusing and slightly ironic that opposition fans litter this board with comments like 'arrogant' or say that we think we are entitled to success . Then at the same time you get posts like the above stating they should have the same off the field benefits as everyone else!!!! Well guess what you aren't entitled to them . We have invested money and effort to get them and in turn it's brought success.

Why should anyone just be given players or facilites? Why should any club have the right to complain that Wigan is pushing the envelope with top draw facilities for it's staff?

You are so wrong it's laughable. The top teams "preventing others from competing with them"



The crap clubs are preventing themselves. If Uncle Ken put his hand in his pocket and splashed out on Sam Burgess, would you be so sympathetic to the crappy West Yorkshire junk who voted against the Marquee rule? Would you F.

You're talking about losing revenue across the game. What revenue?

"let them eat cake" attitude. Now That's laughable

The thing is teams had an opportunity to develop under the franchise system and they squandered it!

Ask Catalan or Widnes if the franchise system was a failure. They developed strong sides via the execution of a long term plan.

Some clubs in SL can't even plan from week to week! Instead of looking at internal failures they turn into green eyed monsters who love to point the finger of blame at anyone apart from themselves.

If Widnes can come from the championship and over a short space of time firmly cement themselves in the league what does that say of those who have wasted 10 years in the top flight? If a side like Catalan can establish themselves when facing all the obstacles in the world what does that say about teams like Wakey?

The current system only serves to stop the big sides rightly pushing ahead. The only benefit it provides is to mask over the inadequacies of those running the sides who simply don't want to do anything. ATEOTD why would they? Everything is given to them on a plate.

Diddums.

Whilst you are espousing 'simple capitalism', you do realise that without checks and balances (like a salary cap) such a system leads to monopoly don't you? I say again-

Would you be happy playing a round robin against Saints and Leeds ad infinitum?

Even that bastion of traditional capitalism the Premier League tried to have a geographical ban on recruiting youngsters so that a club could only recruit within a 25 mile radius. Even they realised the inherent unfairness of allowance the Man Utds and Chelsea's to do as they please.

It may well lead to a monopoly where only a handful of clubs win the top prize. Oh, wait a minute..!

I haven't advocated removal of checks and balances such as the salary cap, so I'm not sure why you've directed that question at me. Your scenario of round robin games with only Saints and Leeds is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of the marquee player rule.

Interesting to note that Nigel Wood was thrilled the rule got passed and the RFL have wanted it implemented for some time!

You're talking as if being a "big club" is a permanent thing. Little clubs can become big, and vice versa, given the right situation, it's by no means a closed shop - just look at league tables over, say, 10 year gaps, to see once small clubs like wire and hudds becoming big and once big clubs like Bradford collapsing.

I think that's a very good point. And little clubs can only become big clubs if they still exist. Therefore a case against the free market!!!

We already do. Despite the odd self inflicted disaster when it gets to the business end it is the same suspects competing for the trophies. The salary cap set at the level it is has done nothing to alter that.

Rugby League doesn't exist in isolation and yet has basically had a wage freeze for well over a decade.

That is incompatible with the concept of professional sport because as we have seen once a sport gets some money behind it as RL in OZ has and RU here, players wages take off leaving our players behind The players in the NRL and RU quite rightly expect a fair share of the pie.

Pro-cappers here rarely mention the players livelihoods. The seen to think because Cas and Wakey can't afford a cap bigger than what it is, it is OK for all the players at every club to have their wages held down. Why?

I think the salary cap [uin the UK[/u is self defeating myself. Here in the UK it is in effect a lowest common denominator. It is set too low so as to accommodate the poorest clubs and it means clubs who could afford to pay the players more can't so there is always a chance the best players will leave but the poorest clubs remain the poorest clubs and least likely to win a trophy. It serves no useful purpose and who knows how many young players don't even bother trying to make a career out of it given the wages for the average player are effectively low.

In Australia it is not a lowest common denominator at all. It is high enough so the players can earn high salaries yet it will prevent one club outspending another.

With the Sky deal all our clubs now have the full £1.8m salary cap paid. They got about £1.1m before IIRC so why not increase the cap to £2.5m? The clubs still have to find the same as they used to, £0.7m. If they can't do that they really have no place in a professional league.

HKR look a better prospect these days not because of the salary cap but because they have been given the money to pay right up to it and they are spending it IMO. Why other clubs still don't want things like the marquee player or the cap raised when they have also just been handed £1.8m on a plate I really don't know.

Sooner or later the cap will have to go up not just by minor tinkering by things like the marquee player rule. It can't stay as it is and RL protect itself never mind compete with the NRL and RU.

For it to go up we need more money in the sport or at least going to the top clubs. The Aussie clubs don't earn their income as such, most of it comes from the TV rights and they don't divide it between 26 clubs either. We should do the same. The SL clubs should share the TV money (cap goes up to £3.2m then I believe) and we should give up on the false idea we can have a 26 team pro league. We can't. We can't afford it.

The tone of debate on here from many posters (though not necessarily yourself) has been - To hell with the poorer clubs we can do without them, we are being held back by them etc.

Some have even said they don't care if the smaller clubs go out of business they couldn't care less.

We've been here before. I'm not going to rehash this debate. It feels a bit like 'Groundhog Day'

I presume you mean by smaller clubs going out of business you mean smaller SL clubs going bust trying to keep pace with richer ones if the salary cap was raised.

I don't think any such club has to go out of business because if the Sky money was allocated as it should be in my view, to the SL clubs, they would be well off and well able to compete.

That said I don't think you should just hand over a few million quid just because a club is currently in the SL. We then get back to licensing and clubs being let into the "SL club" based on off-field criteria.