Indeed they are not. However it would be the domineering factor. Given than there will always be a large variation in the amount the clubs in the league can afford to pay there will be a large variation in the standard of the clubs in the league. So fewer competitive matches leading to fewer spectators, fewer viewers, lower revenues, restricted development of players and tactics. Unless there is something to address this variation.

and we were also, for a time run by idiots

and had there not been an sc leeds and saints would be even better sides because they have got it right, wigan would likely be better too, along with most clubs,



really? kindly show some evidence please



no it doesnt, but having more players, who are of a higher quality costs more, even if they have come through your academy



the sc does nothing at all toward this

I'm going out on a limb here......





Maybe the standard of the British game is dropping like a stone because British players and coaches are bad and getting worse.







Just throwing that out there.

The SC is there to force clubs to improve themselves off field and remove the temptation to over spend on field



The same applies to the removal of P and R both to SL clubs and Championship clubs



To argue for one but against the other is both stupid and hypocritical



Then again we already know that

Would they have got it right if they spent all of their money on buying players rather than putting it into their infrastructure? Buying in players and paying high wages is a shortcut to actually developing them. Saints and Leeds have got it right because they HAD to in order to compete. They wouldn't have to if it was about the cheque-book.





Yes it does as it forces clubs to develop players, therefore improving the talent pool, which in essence will improve the standards and quality of the league.

Has it changed?

Why?



This seems to be the fundamental issue here. Why does paying a player more make them a better player?

I've already answered this

Exactly! Therefore your post is biased, selective and represented only your own prejudices.



Edited: (for the purpose of dealing the with actual reality)

no, leeds and saints made a decision to put faith in developing players, most of this current leeds squad who came through the academy will have been at leeds prior to the sc being in place, the infrastructure was already there,



and what your describing isnt a difference between and SC and a none-SC world, but the difference between a well run business and a poorly run one, and neither Leeds nor Saints were running a wage bill higher than what the SC is prior to it being in place, to credit it with somehow stopping them spending more is nonesense, only wigan were spending more, and still werent overly succesful which is why only wigan got a dispensation for the first couple of years of the SC





where is the evidence? when there is more overseas players in this country post SC than Pre SC? when you yourself have started this thread saying you think the quality is falling? the SC has been in place for ten years, throughout than ten years fewer british youngsters have been developed to elite level than prior to SC, and the standard according to you (which i agree with) is falling these things seem entirely contradictory

so then why isnt the SC based on what is affordable rather than an arbitrary amount which has barely changed in ten years?

3 SLs, 4 GFs, 2 WCCs, record crowds, a record points total, a record winning margin for the league, says yes, fortunately it has

it doesnt, the part you quoted specifically says it doesnt, though as has been explained having more players, of better quality costs more, paying him more doesnt make him better, but for more money, you can get better, its fairly simple



a player will always seek his worth, thats his right, so a young hooker comes through an academy, makes the breakthrough and becomes a first team regular will rightly expect a pay rise to a level commensurate with his talent, he may be the best hooker in the country, if there isnt the space under the cap to make him the best paid hooker in the country, he either has to accept a wage lower than he rightly deserves, or he has to move making the team which nurtured him and invested in him worse than if they had kept him, they then need to replace him, but there isnt another hooker of his talent, so they then have to pick up another hooker who is either experienced but so poor he would accept the wage of a young hooker on the fringes, or another young hooker, who wasnt quite as good as his colleague who has just left, or you are expecting clubs to somehow bring through another top quality young hooker, who they will lose again in a couple of years or they will need to lose somebody else to keep him



whilstever a club is looking at an either/or choice then they arent improving to the level they could have

it is neither selective nor biased nor predjudiced it simply dealt with the two examples in the post I quoted



Your paranoia and over-sensitivity does you no favours, especially considering who long you spend arguing widnes fans aren't bitter paranoid conspiracy theorists, posts like this are pretty counter-productive



But to address the point you were too bitter and paranoid of an anti widnes conspiracy to phrase properly, it doesn't matter what had gone before, we shouldn't be giving licenses in the franchise era to clubs run by people we can't trust to run their businesses responsibly,

So you are complaing because a club produces a decent player and then loses them because another club is willing to pay them more money



Boo bloody hoo , and you keep going on about non SL clubs should be spending more money to produce potential SL players



Leeds have outibid ' smaller ' clubs for decades , now you will know how it feels to find some good young talent that you have produced taken from you for no recompense

no, once again you have confused yourself

i have no problem with losing a player to a club willing to pay more



my issue is with arbitrarily stopping clubs offering what they are both willing and able

TOUGH





Get over it those are the rules , if you dont like them F*** off to RU



Oh yes you did , and you didn't get what you wanted there either did you

awww, you having another 'senior moment'

You,re the ' grumpy owd git here pal



As I said TOUGH live with it

im very happy, just no idea what you're on about with union



rules change fortunately

No it doesn't. It would without a salary cap but the cap fixes this problem. It allows clubs to have more players of better quality without having increased salary costs.

or sign an inferior player on less money



the only way the sc would work like you think is if all players were paid the same

So where does the player go in his quest for more money Smokey?

another sl club or union generally