Correct.



I believe our squad is good enough to challenge for honours next year even with no further additions. I wouldn't mind a tough prop or an explosive back rower but give me new deals for Bateman, Sarginson, Charnley, Gelling, Hampshire etc any day.

My thoughts exactly. Is he in with a shot at a gig with the 49ers?

I think he would prefer the Browns.

In part yes I do. I am in favour of a salary cap. Actually I think most fair minded people are if they take the off the blinkers of supporting just one club.



However the Marquee Signing rule is really only tinkering with the cap, and as such I'm not against it. I have posted that earlier, maybe you missed it.



I understand your points, but the logical outcome of your position is that smaller clubs overreach themselves, cease to compete and ultimately go out of business. Rugby League can't be run on those principles in the same way that Professional Football can, because there just aren't enough clubs.



Do you want to see Wigan play Leeds, Saints and Wire on a round robin basis throughout the season? Or even worse do you want to see Wigan cast in the role of Glasgow Celtic with no competitors? (Or even worse than that Wigan as Glasgow Rangers?)

I want to see the best of quality Wigan side as possible and if that ment we where to dominate and win every game and every trophy so be it. It would be the resonsibility of the competition to catch us up

I'd rather see us dominate every week with a squad full of Brett Kennys than be forced into our current mediocrity.



Let's not pretend this cap has been a good thing. It's produced competitiveness at the expense of the proper teams aspirations. In no other walk of life would you keep or let yourself be held at a destitute level if you had the means or ambition to get out of it.



That's exactly what happens now. The have nots are wrongfully holding back the big guns because they know they can't compete. Well sadly that's life - we have more resources, more business acumen and a rich stream of new talent at our disposal.



These small minded few have held the game back long enough imo.

Of course, every fan everywhere in every sport wants their team to dominate, but then there is reality.What do you think will fund this team of Brett Kenny's? Are you of the opinion that Wigan have millions salted away in the bank? Because we sure as hell won't get any funds through the gates we attract.



Do you think a team full of Brett Kenny's will have the crowds flooding back to watch the 'mediocrity' of Super League?



A quick glance at Bilko's site reveals that in Kenny's one season we averaged 10,000 fans. And all through the halcyon days that followed we never averaged the 16,000 that we got in 2011. (By the way there's a myth that Sam Tomkins' leaving affected our attendances - not true. They started to go down in his final season).



I'm afraid that the reality is - Wigan benefit just as much from the cap as the others do. The idea that the likes of Cas and Wakey are stopping us becoming some sort of world force is risible. Get real.

We were a global force in the pre cap era so why couldn't that happen again? Stop selling the club so short and saying things can't be done. We have after all seen some true history defining days in Cherry and White that others said couldn't be done. The potential for this club is unparalleled in the British game. .



There's plenty of benefits and extra revenue streams that are closed off by the cap that could be opened up again (free accommodation, 3rd party payments, image rights etc). You only need the inclusion of three/four top draw players into this side for us to play against anyone without fear.



BTW this just isn't Wigan blinkers either. I'd be happy if someone like the Dr had the balls/vision to want to create something truly special like we did in the 80's.



You've also yet to answer my question why should anyone be allowed to stop him?

You know why. As you alluded to earlier. We fundamentally disagree. You believe in unfettered capitalism, the rule of the free market. I believe in financial constraint for the good of all (I'm exaggerating for the purpose of simplicity - we probably agree on quite a few things).



I think we'll have to agree to differ about the cap. And I guess from the tone of the the thread that most people agree with you - I'll live with that.

like bradford and celtic?

Ahhh socialism.

Aren't we currently renting a football stadium because our business model from them days was unsustainable?

NO

It obviously played it's part but it's obvious that if you spend more than you have things will eventually go wrong.



That being said I think it was more misjudgement/ mismanagement from Wigan. We arguably went too far imo. There were decisions taken such as the signing of Offiah when we already had an adequate player in Myers being a prime example of how not to do it.

Having to cover the cost of a collapsing derelict coal mine also had something to do with it.

The basic problem is we are a sport that in general can't afford to pay superstar salaries. The Wigan model in the 90's was based on going to Wembley every year and paying too many players too much unsurprisingly, we eventually went bust as did Bradford who had a similar model.

I support the new rule and in principle support the salary cap however, the current cap is too low and is long overdue a signicant increase.

The sport has always had a marketability issue and fundamentally is significantly underfunded. What we really need is someone at the very top with the skills and the right contacts in the major boardrooms of branded companies to get access to far larger sponsorship deals that are currently available. Whatever happened to the ex Football guy who came in as I think Chairman of SL who was going to help deliver this?

Until this issue is resolved we will always be a very small fish swimming in an ocean of sport.

If clubs chase the dream and go bust in the process, so be it. Wigan - although never technically going bust, unless you believe Saddo - had their financial difficulties but we survived.



Bradford had some pain but they'll come back stronger in years to come with good management. Which I think is what it will all boil down to.



If Salford sign Inglis, Wire sign Cronk, Leeds sign SBW... Good on them.



Capitalism all the way.

I think we missed the boat after the last tv rights it was too watered down if every SL club had got 2.2 million and that was the cap every club would be on the same footing .We could say that every club now is on the same as the money now from tv as I think they get 1.7 million .The cap wants raising to keep the good players in RL and attract other players outside of the game.

The argument that the marquee rule will prevent players defecting to NRL or RU is false. We MAY possibly perhaps keep 2 or 3 players. In total, ( big deal) - but it's more likely we get another batch of Aussies past their origin best coming for a payday.

The NRL are paying a lot more than SL- and they can't prevent the players going to RU....

It's a gimmick- no more. We know how those in control at the RFL love their gimmicks.

There are two different issues to the salary cap - as a way of stopping clubs overspending I'm in favour of the original 50% of income rule, but as a way of increasing competition it hasn't and won't work, and just holds back the clubs with a good financial structure in place (including a good junior system, reducing the need for expensive signings). I like the fact that this new marquee rule distinguishes between home grown players and signings, for that reason.

One of the things always mentioned in this debate is that the clubs with a good system of producing youngsters shouldn't be held back by those who don't produce players. But it's not as simple as that is it?



For example. If you lived in Wakefield say and your son had Wakey, Leeds and Wigan knocking on your door. Who would you advise him to sign for? So the big clubs are usually able to hoover up all the talent to the detriment of the smaller ones.



Now, there's nothing wrong with the above scenario but you can see how the home club, in this instance, through no fault of their own, lose talent on their own doorstep.

GH will not break the bank to sign a marquee player even though the club are the richest in SL

It's more likely going to one of our home grown players IF any of them earn over £100k ?

Too bad we can't afford any of them.

Equally Widnes cas or Wakefield could discover the next Andy Farrell / Kieron Cunningham but due to SOME clubs extra spending power are now even more likely to lose him than they already would be.

Capitalism all the way?

Without a shadow of a doubt.



The best players want to play for the biggest sides imo.



I'm a firm believer that what's best for the big sides is best for the league. ATEOTD it's the big sides that push the envelope, it's the big sides that invest heavily in academics and training facilities. It's sides like Wigan that heavily scout none traditional areas like South Wales.



It might sound harsh but if the CC cup final is on BBC who do you think the casual fan or the first time sports fan would tune in to watch - Wakefield vs Huddersfield or one of the big four playing each other? Likewise who would you tune in to Barcelona vs Madrid or two mid table sides?



Our big sides are our cash cows. Outside of individuals they are our greatest marketing assets imo.