Re: BMM : Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:13 pm  

In a round about way it was. It was perceived that the likes of Wigan had too much financial clout, that, left unchecked, would unbalance the game.

Re: BMM : Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:14 pm  

... Not just Wigan of course!

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:47 am  

....that still had nothing to do with the salary cap....or BMM.

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:09 am  

rubber duckie wrote:

The salary cap isn't there to even out the competition.
It never has been.

What is it for then?

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:45 am  

It's purpose was to stop clubs from spending money the couldn't afford.
Trying to address clubs running at a loss.
Which it hasn't for almost all teams still, Leeds eventually made a profit, but didn't stop teams from spending more, cheating to win SL and in cases going bust, over and over, and in other cases, cheating the cap to avoid relegation....all penalised with a deferred fine and deferred points deducted, that they then appealed and got lifted...so much there's the mockery of punishment to prove it's there to make an even competition.

The rfl may be dressing it up and even able to state it primarily that it is there to make a more even competition, but if this was truly the objective, why is it not then compulsory for each club to pay full cap?....this is the only way to have a market where balance could theoretically be achieved... Perhaps this conflicts with British/European law, I don't know, but it is the only way.

So however the rfl want to dress it up, without that rule it's just bollox....which it is now completely bollox since the marquee ruling, because now there is no ceiling at all, just a tiered cap.

The woods are behind the trees.

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:04 am  

rubber duckie wrote: It's purpose was to stop clubs from spending money the couldn't afford. Trying to address clubs running at a loss. Which it hasn't for almost all teams still, Leeds eventually made a profit, but didn't stop teams from spending more, cheating to win SL and in cases going bust, over and over, and in other cases, cheating the cap to avoid relegation....all penalised with a deferred fine and deferred points deducted, that they then appealed and got lifted...so much there's the mockery of punishment to prove it's there to make an even competition. The rfl may be dressing it up and even able to state it primarily that it is there to make a more even competition, but if this was truly the objective, why is it not then compulsory for each club to pay full cap?....this is the only way to have a market where balance could theoretically be achieved... Perhaps this conflicts with British/European law, I don't know, but it is the only way. So however the rfl want to dress it up, without that rule it's just bollox....which it is now completely bollox since the marquee ruling, because now there is no ceiling at all, just a tiered cap. The woods are behind the trees. Yes that is one reason but it had many others also. http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... %20PDF.pdf

rubber duckie wrote: It's purpose was to stop clubs from spending money the couldn't afford. Trying to address clubs running at a loss. Which it hasn't for almost all teams still, Leeds eventually made a profit, but didn't stop teams from spending more, cheating to win SL and in cases going bust, over and over, and in other cases, cheating the cap to avoid relegation....all penalised with a deferred fine and deferred points deducted, that they then appealed and got lifted...so much there's the mockery of punishment to prove it's there to make an even competition. The rfl may be dressing it up and even able to state it primarily that it is there to make a more even competition, but if this was truly the objective, why is it not then compulsory for each club to pay full cap?....this is the only way to have a market where balance could theoretically be achieved... Perhaps this conflicts with British/European law, I don't know, but it is the only way. So however the rfl want to dress it up, without that rule it's just bollox....which it is now completely bollox since the marquee ruling, because now there is no ceiling at all, just a tiered cap. The woods are behind the trees. Yes that is one reason but it had many others also. http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... %20PDF.pdf

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:16 am  

Cheers...
I'll let others read that, there is a lot more bollox to take in.
I'll just straighten out the misconception that it's just there to make the competition equal.

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:18 am  

I think it was necessary at the time - some clubs with low attendances were living beyond their means and I’m almost certain some of them would have collapsed. The cap sort of forced them into a moderation mindset and now some of those clubs have new boards and better facilities with much better crowds.

It has evened up the playing field in a certain respect as we don’t have a big four trouncing the little clubs every week. However, we are still yet to see one of the smaller clubs win a trophy in the super league era. I wouldn’t back against Castleford, Wakefield or Huddersfield to win the challenge cup soon. It’s been building for a while.

That said, we haven’t seen the game expand really in that time, and we have seen a decline in grass rooots and talent coming through.

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:33 am  

When it came in all clubs were spending more than they brought in.

Even the pre SL mighty Wigan of the 80s were spent up to the hilt and relied on a visit to Wembley to help balance the wage bill and massive transfer fees...loans.

Salford shock defeat masterminded by Andy Gregory virtual bankrupt the club.

Re: BMM : Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:39 am  

The Wigan philosophy lately seems to be to plead injuries for most of the season & blood all the young fringe players then wheel out the big guns for games that matter.