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

Going to another SL club

just what we want.

going to union.....not seeing a lot of that

no, it really isnt, that simply spreads what talent we do have, thinner, with everyone getting more and more average which will be terrible for the game



what we want is more clubs producing more quality, THAT is what will bring us a truly competitive sport, the idea the sc will is nonsense



theres a few players going, and when you are producing as few as we are its a problem

Or he gives up or isn't even motivated to work hard enough in the first place because earning a pittance as a young player isn't very attractive.... and the pro-SC muppets wonder why we have so little talent coming through....

Why so? 14 teams of equal player ability, any team can win on any day, sounds fantastic to me.

The talent can't be spread thinner - we'd have to reduce the amount of talent for that to happen.





We certainly do need more clubs producing more quality. Not sure why you think the salary cap hinders that though





Are there? Who?

Any player in sport just for the money isn't in the right business.

anybody thinking a guy shouldn't get as much out of his best years as he can isn't thinking straight! These guys sacrifice a lot, a huge amount, just to entertain us.

So how would consolidating all the best talent at few clubs (or if you had your way, Leeds) make the league as a whole better?



Taken in isolation the SC may not in itself drive clubs to develop young British players, but in combination with the ongoing staged reductions in quota players there will be an increase over the next few years.

I wouldn't look to consolodate all the talent at one club, or even three or four, I would look to have more talent at more clubs, the only way to do that is to force clubs to bring through more talent, make their success or failure dependant on it, this sc simply hasn't done that, we have seen more and more clubs sign more and more overseas players



And the quotas are a restraint of trade they will always be challanged and always fail to stand up in court,



The sc has done completely the opposite of what you are stating, why will it now change?

Well you clearly said that talent being spread across more clubs is bad for the league as a whole, the implication being that talent consolidated in a few clubs is good for the league as a whole.



As I said the SC in isolation may not encourage clubs to develop young players but there is now the reduced quota rules which although have been challenged and relented upon I think that when the players currently in the systems to whom dispensation applies leave, promotions to replace will come from within more often than not.



Also, we are not even 1 year into the franchising experiment which allows clubs to plan further ahead and introduce players who may have been deemed too much of a risk in the past with the threat of relegation.



Basically I think that we will not know for another year or two what effect the radical changes introduced will have. If at that time there is no evidence of more British youngsters playing in SL then I guess the changes will be deemed to have failed, but they need to be allowed some time before we start to criticise overmuch.