Yes this is probably going to happen, as it has happened over the last 3 or 4 years. What you must ask yourself is why is this happenening if we have a salary cap ?

There are several other sides that have the resources and spending power of these two clubs but at the moment they can't get anywhere near them.

Wigan should not by crying like spoilt little brats because they cant spend more than anyone else. They should be rolling their sleeves up and working hard trying to emulate Leeds and Saints.

Here is a pointer to start you off, would Leeds or saints have paid such a huge salary to the clown of a prop forward that came from Bradford ?

You see what the salary cap does, is to show clubs in their true light. When everyone has to work on an equal basis it sorts the wheat from the chaff.
Salary caps will bring us progress in the game, it will identify the poor organisations that are inept at running rugby clubs and it will identify the smartest organisations that can get the best out of a fixed budget.

Well not a Prop forward but I can think of a current Leeds player on a high salary that used to wear the red amber and black.

You'll have to explain to me how this will prevent players from moving to Union. No matter how much RL can pay a player, RU clubs have far more money at their disposal than RL clubs so, surely, they'll just up the ante and offer even more to our top players than their RL club can afford.

Yes and if it is the same one I am thinking of he earns his wage unlike the coward of the county at wigan.

Exactly true.

The reasons for staying in league will include:
money
family
friends
pride
the game itself
loyalty

The reasons for leaving would include:
money
the chance to play on the big stage (6-nations etc).

We cannot match the profile of the Union game right now (and that is amuch to do with bias in the press as anything else, but that's another matter), and if we try and match Union for spending power we will come second - by a long, long way.

If Union fancy a punt at a League player, think he's good enough to make it in their game, and can convince him that he can make the big stage - then he's gone. But MOST players will just use Union to negotiate a better deal, then, on balance, they will weigh up the pro's and con's and sign with a League club on a better deal. It's the way of the world - we may not like it, but we're strong enough to survive it - as we are now anyway!

If you want a serious response, ask a serious question.

If rugby league were a competitive amateur sport, I would still pay to watch Trinity, because that's the team I support.

I would pay sod all to watch you and your mates, in fact, I would expect to be paid to attend, and how much you managed to raise would determine whether or not I even bothered.

Having read the arguments i have to agree with Jon.

off the cap and cut the cap in half

thats not really true

Does the sc guarantee competitiveness? How many points did Leigh get in sl under the sc? Leeds have won 3 of the last 5 gfs and competed in 4 of the last 5 saints have won the last 4 challenge cups outside the traditional big 4 only 1 other club has qualified for the gf in all of so we still 60 points put on some teams and we are still waiting for a smaller team to do anything of note





And you have ignored the harm having it in it's current form does to the game in terms of it's evolution by protecting faillings and punishing success and ignored the benefits of restructuring it because you are struck with the same self interest you accuse Jonh of

Leigh were unable to spend to the fixed SC limit. Their time in SL is the perfect example of what a gap in spending on salaries means in practice. Removing the current SC limit would mean more clubs being as uncompetitive as Leigh were - that would be devastating to the competition as a whole.



Which failings have been protected? Which successes have been punished? The ones losing out are the poorly run clubs who are spending to the SC limit but are unable to be compete with the well run clubs who are spending to the SC limit. This is good; it provides an incentive to them to sort themselves out.

would it, i dont remember that being the case pre 99. i remember smaller clubs like widnes and cas doingok in a none sc world

well leeds lost mathers walker murrell doherty and it now looks like smith because they cant keep them under the sc

the major beneficaries are those kept artificially close because they were slow to react all the sc has done is protected the status qou and damaged that it seems is enough for some

Right. So where was success punished? An example of punishing success is the "[url=http://www.btcc.net/html/regulations.phpSuccess ballast[/url" given to drivers in the BTCC. Expecting everyone to play by the same rules is not punishing success.



Certainly the league has benefited from being closer. However the closeness of the league is the true closeness of the league. Only if different rules applied to different clubs would that be artificial (such as said Success ballast which artificially creates closer races by hampering better drivers).

it is when 'playing by the same rules' means deliberately holding some clubs back so others can catch up, which is the over-riding aim of this salary cap

this 'level' playing field isnt level at all, a club like wakefield are allowed to spend maybe 50% or more of their turnover on wages, Leeds maybe as low as 20% there are better ways in encouraging clubs to do what we want them to do, which will lead to an even competition that doesnt include stopping the game evolving



but the SC does hamper some clubs and does artificially make the league closer, thought no by much

for some clubs the salary cap may as well not apply, they wouldnt spend more than it regardless of whether it existed or not, if a club cant afford to spend £2m on wages it shouldnt spend £2m on wages whether there is an SC or not,

some clubs can spend much more than that, it is they and only they, in differing levels that are punished, we should have trust in our clubs to be run in a well managed way, if we cant they should be dropped, like any good business, a well run club will spend as little as it can whilst still challenging, the idea that the owners of our top clubs will suddenly start spending their own money on things players they dont need is ridiculous, you dont get to be a successful businessman by spending more than you should

and if you are going to make claims regarding what they sc does you should be able to defend them when they are challenged

The over-riding aim of the salary cap is to create a more competitive competition. This it is succeeding in doing.



Paying the same amount on wages isn't level? Maybe teams that can afford to spend more on wages should be allowed to field more players. After all they can afford to.

Leeds are another good example. As jonh said they used to waste vast amounts of money failing to compete with Wigan. Now the SC has brought them to the point where they have achieved great success by doing the right things, by investing in youth, by putting systems in place to regulate players' pay and avoid overpaying players. You think this is bad?
When other clubs follow this example they will be rewarded with success and we will be rewarded with more competitive matches at the highest level. This would not be possible without the salary cap.



This is a problem. Fortunately as the competition has improved interest in it has risen and so revenue has risen at these clubs. Of course if they were getting hammered every week this wouldn't happen but the salary cap stops that.



Unrestricted spending will simply lead to wage inflation. The same players just paid more. This might stop one or two from going to Union but at a very high cost.

Having one or two clubs in a competition who are vastly superior to the rest creates a poor competition. Which is a poor product for the clubs to sell. For this reason the SL clubs agreed to limit spending on salaries to create a better competition. It is working, attendances are up, viewing figures are up. Now you want to destroy that just because another sport wants to pay one player more than he is worth?

Sorry - which bit isn't true?

all of it, i doubt there is an SL club in more trouble than Bristol, Sarries are clearing out there are plenty of RU clubs in a bit of trouble

there isnt a huge different between a club like leeds and a club like leicester,

there are big clubs and little clubs each being able to spend more or less in both leagues,

its all very well saying if leicester want to pay a million a season to sign Rob Burrow there is nothing we can do,

but the same goes if leeds want to go pay delon armitage a million a year RU clubs could do nothing,

there isnt a massive difference in pay in this country between RU and RL, the difference comes only at international level through international payments and sponsorship

Massive thread, so not sure if it's been mentioned before, but have any of you noticed the agent involved in Farrell, Ashton et al....and now mentioned with Smith. And put two and two together?

"

1) Except that the RU salary cap is more than double the RL cap?


2) This is precisely where the threat comes from. If RU wants a top RL player the RFU will subsidise the move (as with Farrell) and no RL club could match it.

and a player roster twice the size


they could just not under an sc designed to restrict spending to that of the poorest clubs

Apologies if this has been covered, but I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere that the powers that be at the RFU are now getting worried about the threat of French RU and them enticing top players to play their trade in France. The RFU have used to carrot of representing England as a tool to encourage the players to remain in the English game. This suggests that they are unable to match the French RU clubs offer financially. This to me says it all about player movements.

Agents will always look to get the best deal for themselves and their client. The RU clubs are offering a small fortune to the better RL players to switch codes and they are equally being hit by French RU clubs offering even more money for their better players to go to France. It s a free market and they will go where the best deal is. The RU clubs have the added benefit of the financial backing of the RFU which league quite simply does not have.

I agree that some sort of SC alteration with regards to only 50% of a home grown academy products wage counting against the cap, but for different reasons. This should be used to encourage clubs to develop there own rather then relaying upon imports.

Chris Ashtons and Andy Farrells agent is Andy Clarke, brother of former Wigan player Phil Clarke.

Is he also Smiths agent?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Chris Ashtons and Andy Farrells agent is Andy Clarke, brother of former Wigan player Phil Clarke. Is he also Smiths agent?'" www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/200 ... -21209615/

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Chris Ashtons and Andy Farrells agent is Andy Clarke, brother of former Wigan player Phil Clarke. Is he also Smiths agent?'" www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/200 ... -21209615/

Andy Clarke is a c~@k of the highest order, he basically made a name for himself off the back of his families name in League and is intent on pushing his players towards union, he was also behind the move that saw Rads almost go to Union.

He was also behind 'Mooregate' and will quite clearly stop at nothing in his race to earn a quick buck.

I agree with your description!