WiganWarriorsFans.com

Wiganer123 wrote:It sounds like the reason he signed for Toronto is because it's a nice place to live and he gets paid loads of money? If that's the case then according to you we wouldn't ever be able to sign him so it's hardly worth discussing.

What about Australia though, is that not a nice country to live in and isn't their salary cap higher than ours.

yep, but they are paid more so have to move players round all the time, its like the NFL there now. Look what Souths had to do to get Sam Burgess back.....they never recovered. You said you wouldnt want him not that we couldnt get him......

pedro wrote:They have the largest sponsorship deal in the northern hemisphere and can spend the same cap as us.

Not unless the rules have changed. They are not in SL so are limited to the cap level of their division.

I thought the cap has been equalised a couple of years ago when the 8s came in?

DaveO wrote:

pedro wrote:They have the largest sponsorship deal in the northern hemisphere and can spend the same cap as us.

Not unless the rules have changed. They are not in SL so are limited to the cap level of their division.

as from this year all 3 pro leagues have the same cap

pedro wrote:

DaveO wrote:

pedro wrote:They have the largest sponsorship deal in the northern hemisphere and can spend the same cap as us.

Not unless the rules have changed. They are not in SL so are limited to the cap level of their division.

as from this year all 3 pro leagues have the same cap

You have to laugh really. Unless you believe in conspiracy theories about the cap being brought in to stop us buying all the trophies one of, if not THE main reason, for the cap was to stop clubs overspending.

How is that going to work down in the two lower divisions where they get next to no Sky money and have tiny (relatively) levels of support?

How is it going to stop a club (such as Toronto) buying promotion?

Anyone would think it's been done deliberately so that is exactly what they can do.

Does the % of turnover rule still apply? Even with the flat rate cap this has still been there in previous years. If it does then equalising the cap won't make much difference anyway.

DaveO wrote:

pedro wrote:

DaveO wrote: Not unless the rules have changed. They are not in SL so are limited to the cap level of their division.

as from this year all 3 pro leagues have the same cap

You have to laugh really. Unless you believe in conspiracy theories about the cap being brought in to stop us buying all the trophies one of, if not THE main reason, for the cap was to stop clubs overspending.

How is that going to work down in the two lower divisions where they get next to no Sky money and have tiny (relatively) levels of support?

How is it going to stop a club (such as Toronto) buying promotion?

Anyone would think it's been done deliberately so that is exactly what they can do.

Does the % of turnover rule still apply? Even with the flat rate cap this has still been there in previous years. If it does then equalising the cap won't make much difference anyway.

no that went ages ago, it started because Leigh (rightly so) wanted the full cap as they said in the qualifiers how could they compete with a full time team spending 1.85mil.

They agreed and let Leigh spend it last year and its been relaxed all the way down for this year as it applies for all the leagues how can they expect to beat a higher paid and possibly larger squad.

pedro wrote:

DaveO wrote:

pedro wrote: as from this year all 3 pro leagues have the same cap

You have to laugh really. Unless you believe in conspiracy theories about the cap being brought in to stop us buying all the trophies one of, if not THE main reason, for the cap was to stop clubs overspending.

How is that going to work down in the two lower divisions where they get next to no Sky money and have tiny (relatively) levels of support?

How is it going to stop a club (such as Toronto) buying promotion?

Anyone would think it's been done deliberately so that is exactly what they can do.

Does the % of turnover rule still apply? Even with the flat rate cap this has still been there in previous years. If it does then equalising the cap won't make much difference anyway.

no that went ages ago, it started because Leigh (rightly so) wanted the full cap as they said in the qualifiers how could they compete with a full time team spending 1.85mil.

They agreed and let Leigh spend it last year and its been relaxed all the way down for this year as it applies for all the leagues how can they expect to beat a higher paid and possibly larger squad.

I quite agree it is impossible for teams who can't spend to the cap to compete but the hypocrisy of those running the game is breathtaking. While Leigh (and presumably Toronto) can afford to spend £1.85m on wages the likes of Doncaster and Featherstone can't. So now we are back (for them) to pre salary cap days of not being able to compete with the rich clubs. The whole ethos behind the salary cap has been tossed out of the window.

I am sure some will say it's up to them to find the money but that argument was not considered a good reason to allow a larger salary cap for SL. Presumably the lower salary caps in operation in the lower divisions were set with a mind to what the majority of clubs in them could afford.

It seems the desire to return to promotion and relegation and make that meaningful (for rich clubs....) has caused the financial prudence the salary cap regime is supposed to enforce to be scrapped.

The % rule does still apply. It is 1.85m or 50% of turnover whichever is lower.

The sooner the cap goes the better,it’s strangling the sport

Wiganer123 wrote:The % rule does still apply. It is 1.85m or 50% of turnover whichever is lower.

I thought it did in which case Toronto and anyone else have to turn over £3.7m to pay up to it. Unless they cooked the books Leigh must have managed it but for most clubs in the lower divisions this is a pipe dream.