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

SmokeyTA wrote: well leeds lost mathers walker murrell doherty and it now looks like smith because they cant keep them under the sc Right. So where was success punished? An example of punishing success is the "Success ballast" given to drivers in the BTCC. Expecting everyone to play by the same rules is not punishing success. SmokeyTA wrote: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 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).

SmokeyTA wrote: well leeds lost mathers walker murrell doherty and it now looks like smith because they cant keep them under the sc Right. So where was success punished? An example of punishing success is the "Success ballast" given to drivers in the BTCC. Expecting everyone to play by the same rules is not punishing success. SmokeyTA wrote: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 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).

SBR wrote:Right. So where was success punished? An example of punishing success is the "Success ballast" given to drivers in the BTCC. Expecting everyone to play by the same rules is not punishing success. 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 Quote: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). 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

SBR wrote:Right. So where was success punished? An example of punishing success is the "Success ballast" given to drivers in the BTCC. Expecting everyone to play by the same rules is not punishing success. 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 Quote: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). 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