You seem a little confused here. Whilst Eastmond (and possibly Ashton) did seem to be motivated purely by profit, Burgess, Graham (and Ellis) wanted to play at a higher level in Australia. We could have paid twice the money and they still would have left.







Really? I thought we had a cracking end of season without most of our starting pack.







I can't pin down a precise figure, which is why I offered the question up for general discussion. Would the players be happy? Of course not. Would we suffer considerable short term consequences? Yes. But what consequences will we suffer if we continue under the current model? How happy will players be when their clubs (and wages) disappear from under them?







I wouldn't object to that. But it still leaves us in the position where teams with two or three times the income can destabalise the game.







I really don't understand the seemingly automatic assumption that both reducing and leveling the wage structure must ultimately reduce the quality. If I pay Sam Tomkins 30% less does he suddenly become 30% less effective?



I mean, sure - I understand the worry that the top earners will leave en masse. I don't think this is a certainty because not all players are motivated by money or a desire to play in the NRL or Union.



Yes - some will leave. But without the customary cadre of a "big 4" we would have a far less predictable competition where talent and coaching take precidence over a beefy wallet.

If you look at the evidence, then it is pretty clear that the NRL will have more money to throw around in the future. Why wouldn’t they spend it on better players?





So you’re hoping that economic deflation affects the whole nation enough to bring down wages for RL players and make other careers less attractive. If we accept this frankly mental premise, who is going to be able to afford tickets?





You've yet to see evidence of the well documented history of the formation of our game?

I know, they are adjectives, they are used to describe things. HTH



There was a question in that rambling nonsense?

No, he goes somewhere else and becomes 100% less effective.



The Championships are a competition with a low SC and which is unpredictable.



Yet people, in general, still don’t want to go watch, screen it on TV, pay millions in broadcast contracts and sponsorship or play in it.

What you seem to be saying is that (taking it to an extreme for arguments sake) we could get away with paying all our players an equal, low wage, say £25k across the board. We wouldn't need to worry what effect it would have because it would increase competitiveness and unpredictability. And we needn't worry about players leaving for other sports/leagues/careers because there are always some lads who don't know what else they'd do. I'm not knocking those type of lads - but surely we don't want to exclude lads who have a genuine chance of even a slightly better career elsewhere?



There is a business saying that says something like if you aren't growing you are standing still and standing still means you will get left behind and die. We ought to be doing everything possible to grow RL - geographically, demographically and economically. Everything should be done in balance and proportion yes, but let's not just give up and reduce the appeal, breadth and diversity!

Any artificially imposed restriction on economic activity has issues. One of the best run is OPEC, but whilst they have a certain amount of control over world output of oil, they have less control over the price.



I always saw the cap as a short term measure, something to allow those lower down the league to build their finances into a position where we all played from a similar starting point.



However this does seam to have failed and lowering it I would suggest would do little to improve the game.



I think the cap has had it's day and the RFL needs to look at being more of an accounting administrator. I would suggest clubs should be free to spend what they want to spend, but that for a club to qualify for the next round of licencing in the preceeding 3 years the club must break even.



This will take away the need for the clubs to concentrate on player wages. They can pay what they like, but they must cover all their costs. Now if a wealthy benefactor wishes to pay player wages off the books that would be fine. My issue is with wealthy benefactors buying clubs then debting them up to the hilt. So they are not actually paying for the players from their own pocket, but from the clubs future income (which may or may not come in).



In this case a club could have a meger revenue of less than £1million. But with a weathly benefactor be able to pay wages of £3million. As the benefactor would carry the costs not the club.



The same would go for any stadia development, any benefactor could pay the costs of the development, but the club itself would only be liable for buying the stadium on a mortgaged basis that the club could afford to manage.



It's not a panacea and it will not cure all ill's but it will concentrate minds on actually running a stable financial club, seperate to any fan or chairmen lead demands for better players.

I would add to that, if Wigan for example wanted to pay Sam Tomkins £1million a year, why should they be prevented from doing so, it would simply mean they would have less money available to offer to other players who whilst they may not be of sam quality, they may not be a million miles away.



Also if a club creates a talent, why should that club not benefit from the trickle down effect, if that player was hot property they could sell to a rich club and benefit as the rich club could fit them in their wages structure straight away. The cap means that rich clubs don't pay transfers as often because to ship a player in they need to boot a player out as the cap does not allow them to hold both at once.

As predicted - Salford are the first

I'm sure they will. But if the NRL currently wants a British player, and the player wants to play in the NRL (which anyone who has lived abroad and understands the upheaval will know is no certainty by any means) there's little we can do to stop him even before their income expansion.







I've yet to see any evidence that YOU understand it.







I know. You used them to bluff out an argument from authority. Which doesn't make it any less so.







That's two arguments from authority. Congratulations.







You really are straining to prove that lowering wages in a time when the majority of people in Britain are taking a pay cut each year in real terms will render the game devoid of skill, entertainment, sponsors and people willing to watch. Perhaps you should consider a career in palm reading?

I was thinking more along the lines of maintaining the current meritocratic model (better players receive higher wages) - but at a lower overall ceiling which is a fixed minimum and maximum for all clubs and an absolute requirement for entry into the competition.







You said that. I said it would indeed cause problems and would probably have to be implemented in a stepwise, phase-down fashion to mitigate upheaval as much as possible.







You said that. I said we will likely lose players which would certainly be worrying. However, I (and I'm sure the players) prefer this to clubs going out of existence because they are busting their finances attempting to keep up with the top teams who can outspend them for the best talent.







Of course not. Which is why I wouldn't take such action without making every effort to keep as much talent as possible.







There's a mathematical saying that infinite growth is impossible and there's a Marxist saying which argues it leads to disaster.







I really don't see these arguments as mutually exclusive.

Mugwump - Why have you started a thread to just then answer the questions you posed yourself?

The sport was founded due to money, it has always been at the core of the sport. I doubt there has ever been a successful club that did not spend money to get success. At the same time it is easy to sound money and not have success.



Looking at world sport and the salary cap, money probably has the least impact on the sport that it has had for a while (ignoring the club that run out of it).

That’s nonsense and you know it, You don’t need it explaining to you that the economics of the move will be part of the equation for the player.

In the context of what has gone before, this doesnt make any sense whatsoever.



No I didnt.





Its not an argument, its self evident fact.



Nope, its obvious to most people. People arent taking wage cuts as gesture of solidarity with the economy, they take them because they dont have another option. Our players do. Its is self-evident that a lower quality game, will get lower attendances and visibility, and that lower attendances and visibility will result in lower sponsorship and TV rights. We see this in action, its called the championship.