SmokeyTA wrote:Who has said we should do that?

And a heartland team in the championships would never be filled with overseas players would it? We would never see a sustained and deliberate attempt to circumvent the cap from a heartland team would we?

Even someone as biased and blinkered as you has to accept that if an expansion side is going to be able to compete on an equal footing they need to be in competition for the same player pool, and whilst a player may be willing to accept playing part-time for the club at the end of his street for part-time wages, he probably wont be able to move to the other end of the country for a part-time wage.

Starbug wrote:So please give us your ' subjective ' scale of ' eveness ' to make sure all clubs compete on an even footing ?

How much extra salary cap money and quota excemptions makes something fair ?

£ 50 grand ? , 100 ? , 150 ?

4 players ? , 5 ? , 6 ? , 15 ?

How much extra RFL funding through development should they be given to spend on players ? £ 50 grand ? , !00 ? , 200 ?

rupert bear wrote:Earlier in one thread or another it was stated that if existing CC1 teams are complaining about the amount of travelling they will have to do with the new teams coming in then they should drop down to a regional league.

I find it amusing that people now want a 'level playing field' regarding the salary cap for the new teams.
My answer to that would be if the expansion teams can not compete in this league with the same cap as everyone else then perhaps they should join a regional league.

SmokeyTA wrote:Why? the salary cap is set at a level which is beneficial for the heartland Championship sides and they have the added advantage of having SL quality academies (funded by other clubs) on their doorstep. Im not sure why Leigh should receive and advantage purely on the basis they are near Wigan.

The SC doesnt level the playing field, it artificially stacks the deck in favour of some sides based purely on location. I thought you were against that?

rupert bear wrote:Surely equality means that everyone is playing under the same rules. What you are suggesting to me seems to be going down the road so called 'positive discrimination' which is wrong and never works in any walk of life.
If i want to join a club then i would expect to abide by the rules of that club, i would not expect any special treatment or favours from the existing members.

rupert bear wrote:Surely equality means that everyone is playing under the same rules. What you are suggesting to me seems to be going down the road so called 'positive discrimination' which is wrong and never works in any walk of life.
If i want to join a club then i would expect to abide by the rules of that club, i would not expect any special treatment or favours from the existing members.

SmokeyTA wrote:You would need to be a real moron to equate it to 'positive discrimination'. Equality doesnt mean playing under the same rules, do you know why? Because for the reasons i have already set out, the rules dont affect everyone in the same way. If you are disproportionately affected by a rule then it doesnt apply equally does it.

rupert bear wrote:So what you are saying is that the rules should be changed but only for the new members of the club, but existing members of the club should stop moaning about the extra travelling, lower standards and poorer crowds etc or leave the club?

SmokeyTA wrote:No, not at all. If the SC rules were rejigged to better benefit the heartland clubs i would be in favour of it. I have no affiliation to the current system, if it can be changed for something better then we should do it.

But I would think it very naive to think that expansion teams exist in the same space as heartland teams, they dont and there is no reason we shouldnt accept that.