I would pay to watch a competitive game as long as it was a reasonable price.

So you would base that decison on the quality of the product?

Both.

I sometimes go watch Stanley Rangers watched Oulton a couple of times af my mate playes for them.

If I went again and they said you have to pay, it would depend how much they would charge.

I would not pay over the odds but I would not mind paying say up to a £5.

So would you be happy to see a player that increases the quality of the product leave if it ment the game was more competative?

Would not bother me, the player has to make his own mind up. I can't change what they want to do.

If the player thinks he has a better future else where then so be it, it's the same in any job, if you get offered more money to move you will take it.

There might be a few players going to union, but there is also a few payers coming from union to league.

?

Can you tell me who?

Are they international players or top prospects?

The question was not aimed at the player in question, it was aimed at the fan, you and me, are you happy to pay for games that are competative regardless of the quality?

A couple of my mates started off in union and now play league.

A few SL players started in union. Was talking about it to another player and he said you would be suprised by the amount that start in union.

And no, I would not pay for a poor quality game even if it was competative.

The first time I trained in rugby that was in union, in primary school the Wakey rugby union team came and taught us a thing or 2, or they tried any way

Well what we are seeing is Union target International League players and its top prospects.

I played both codes union at a much higher standard than league but chose to follow league not sure that is a sign of improvement, simply a sign of someone who followed there heart regardless of the consequenses.

We all have mates, but what we do not all have is International players and proven Players at Sl level who when offered Union money that League clubs due to its restrictive rules regardless of its viability cannot match chose League.

BUT it's not like a massive number of international class players are going to union, if it was a big number of players then maybe I can see the point in the alarm bells.

Lee Smith, yeah he is a decent player but Leeds have players in there academy who will prob go on to be better than him.

At Accademy level Smith was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world.

Ainscough is being courted. Ashton went, many other non sigened juniors are being targetted and crossing.

Its not the established players we need to worry about anymore!

I see what you meen, but I am sure players will get produced to replace them. At the moment there is a fair few knocking about who have the potential to make it in SL.

If all they care about if money then let them go.

What is your plan? remove the salary cap all together?

No, my plan would be to relate the cap directly to turnover.

I would also like to see a rule that meant players produced from the Academy counted less towards the cap, for example only 70% of the wage contributed towards the cap, 50% if they made international selection.

I would also like to see overseas players wages count extra towards the cap maybe 120%.

This would force the hand of cliubs to invest in both youth and comercial viability, it would also ensure clubs did everything in there power to maximise there turnover and junior development.

Yeah I would be happy with that. I like the idea of it. It would sort 2 problems out, more younger British players and less overseas players.

Although Wakey used to get a lot of stick (rightly so) we are heading in the right direction and are giving young lads the chance that they would not get any where else IMO.

I agree and that is credit to the cap to a certain extent. What i do not like is this "leveling of the playing field" meaning clubs who have potential for growth are judged and held in the same esteem as the lowest common denominator.

For our sport to thrive we need to move forward and embrace growth not restrict it, which is where i feel the current rules of the cap fall down.

Of course you don't. Wigan fans liking the levelling of the playing field would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. However it makes for a more interesting competition that more people want to watch.



We do need to move forward. SL as a whole needs to improve and it is competition that drives that improvement. Allowing one team to dominate results in stagnation.

Have we come so far in 10 years of the cap in its current form that sees 2 teams capable of winning a trophy?

We do have a team of Internationals that are far inferior to the pre cap teams.

I support the cap. What i do not support is the ristrictive nature of it in its current form, and i have yet to see a valid argument for it not to be changed it.

If it were related to turnover Wigan would be far from the team capable of spending the most on players, that along with the fact Leeds spent far more on sallaries than Wigan throughout much of the glory years of Wigan does not support your stance though so lets just sweep it under the carpet.

Funny how whenever you talk to a Wigan fan about the ills of the game, it always comes back to the salary cap, which weakens the argument. What you mean is that Wigan could afford to keep them, could rule the world again, the league becomes a one-club game again, and everyone else goes bust trying to keep up. Marvellous. I'd pay £20 for that, because it was riveting in the eighties and early nineties.

Lets imagine i am not a Wigan fan. Infact i am a rugby fan more than a Wigan fan.
What other ammo do you have.

At the moment we have had the cap for 10 years and we now have Leeds and Saints capable of winning a trophy. We have more foreign players, and a weaker international team.

In no way am i against the cap i just think it should be related to a clubs success not related to the lowest common denominator.

Slugger read my posts rather than reading what you think you see then please respond.

Quite a few different teams have actually won trophies. I'm guessing they were capable. The SL cap has been and remains less effective than it could be due to the fact that clubs have been unable to spend to it.



I wouldn't like the chances of the pre cap teams against the professionals of this era. Although that is probably not a fair comparison. Certainly in terms of the gap between the English and Australian produced players that has widened. Australia does have the benefit of a cap that all the clubs can spend to.



Removing the cap would make SL a less interesting competition. Attendances at CC matches between clubs in different leagues show the interest in non-competitive games. This would hit viewing figures and attendances. This would both directly and indirectly hit clubs' income streams. Which would be devastating to their ability to improve.



I never claimed that Wigan fans were being rational in their objections to the cap. Although I can't see any other clubs being able to get close to the spending power of Leeds and Wigan. Which would mean, in the absence of a cap, no other clubs being able to get close to them on the pitch. Which would be bad for the competition as I explained above.

Australia have a system that does not rely on foreign players, something the cap in the UK has enhanced.

I will bet you either Leeds or Saints will win all the trophies again this year.

As i asked another poster would you pay to watch a competative game regardless of the quality?

NOBODY IS SAYING WE SHOULD REMOVE THE CAP!


What i am saying is we should protect out assets, if we can financially be in a position to keep them then we should, if we are in a financial position to keep them but are unable to due to the rules of the cap in its current form then there is a real issue.

People use the Wigan line against me, yet i am supporting Leeds retaining a player who improves there team and there ability to beat Wigan.

No. However a non competitive game is a poor quality game.



Good. But you do seem to want to change the cap so it no longer serves the purpose it currently has - to help to level the playing field. Which would harm the league as a whole. Which would be bad for all the clubs in the league.



Not at the expense of the competition. Avoiding a minor loss in the short term is not worth major long term damage.



I've got be honest with you here I don't think Leeds are going to be too worried about their ability to beat Wigan.

As i said would you pay to watch me and a group of mates play a competative game?

The game is nothing without quality, the quality has suffered after an initial boost, for the last 5 years.


The purpose the cap currently serves is to harm the game.

It matters not if Leeds beat Wigan, what does matter is if one of the codes finest youngsters leaves the code, even though as a code we could keep him and not be financially in trouble, but the rules say we should let him go regardless.

How does the current cap reward youth development and initiative?

As I said, no.



I disagree. The games are generally of a higher quality. Uncompetitive matches are low quality matches.



How? I've already explained some of the benefits of the cap and the harm that removing the cap would do.



Leeds' wage structure means they will let him go as it ensures they do not over pay players. This is a good thing and is undoubtedly a part of their success. Paying players more than they are worth is not a good thing and would be harmful to the competition as I have explained.



With success. Those clubs who have tried to buy success with big name players have failed. Those clubs who have put in place good systems and structures to both bring though young players and keep experienced players have succeeded.

What an opiniated statement based on precisely nothing!

imo based on the fact that if you look at what weve got about in british talent its poor.which positions have we class british players, who would get into the aussie team or for that matter 2nd, 3rd or 4th teams. weve taken the athletism out of the game to an extent that players arnt allowed to express themselves. so im assuming that you think the games got better, where. the crowds, the entertainment the coveredge slightly. the product no.and imo the players defo no