WiganWarriorsFans.com

well wigan have had to let two of there best young stars go because we couldn't afford to keep them or shuld i say we could but we would have been penalised for spending to much (iv'e heard a rumor we didn't get in under the cap last season and points may be deducted)this cannot continue league must be the only sport where investing less benifits the game!!!

There are pros and cons with the salary cap. As Mo rightly pointed out it is hindering the development of home grown talent. We've payed for the development of two great players for our opposition to use against us. However, if there was no salary cap there could be the tendancy for the bigger clubs to buy out every good player in SL with lucrative contracts, might also tempt even more overseas names. This would leave an even bigger gulf between the top four and the rest. This would also require the lower teams to 'try' and compete to survive meaning them spending money they haven't got and eventually going bust. This was one reason the salary cap was introduced.

As Mo suggested in his statements, why not have the salary cap but have allowances for home grown talent. Or even insist on a home grown quota of players that must be in the squad to promote youth development. This would prevent buying in talent, the last thing I want to see if the kind of thing that is happening in footy at Chelsea.

What was wrong with not spending more than spending 50% of income on salaries? The clubs with effective marketing and/or big crowds can get the players in, the poor clubs can't overspend and put themselves in too much trouble. The current £1.8mill cap is daft since most of the poor clubs can't afford it whilst the big clubs can afford much more. It's therefore a pointless rule and should be scrapped.

Bad mistake in letting Briscoe/Johnson go. I know we are no longer the best supported team in SL so our total income must be less but the error is in letting 2 young players go and still keeping on Mick Cassidy. Don't get me wrong Mick has been a star for us over the years but he is 31+ next season, if anyone had to be cut it should have been him not Briscoe.
I had the chance to talk to Briscoe in the players bar after the Wigan v Stains game in September 2002 after he had made that marvellous try saving tackle down on our line in front of the north /west stand. He was such a polite unassuming lad hoping that Mr! Lindsay would offer him a contract that I wrote to the club saying what a good advertisement he was for Wigan. I wonder what he is thinking now about Mo. A bad mistake as I say, with all this back row talent we have coming through it should have been Old Mick to go. Somebody tell me that we have another full back coming thru who is better than Briscoe ready to take over from Rads in 2 years time

ian.birchall posted:
Somebody tell me that we have another full back coming thru who is better than Briscoe ready to take over from Rads in 2 years time

Why where is Rads going?

The old players home (Rhinos)

i hate to say it but i can see the top teams breaking away again they will not stand lower clubs dictating how much they can spend i would not be suprised to see some kind of game played along side the union teams they need our players to sucseed and we need there financial muscle its dissapointing but maybe the only option!

To me, the salary cap is the biggest outrage in modern sport. The way to level the playing field is for the weakest to aspire to the same levels as the strong, not by weakening the stronger clubs.

I believe this situation was accelerated by the RL's desire to launch Super League in areas that just were not ready for it eg Paris. It always seemed bizarre to me that the salary cap was introduced just as RU went professional. They will have a boost and greater financial power since winning the world cup and will pose an even greater threat to our sport. Bear in mind, that we have had our one permitted pay out from Super League towards Radlinski's wages.

Last season showed that more players are required not fewer, with horrendous injury lists at various times in the season for most of the top sides. With the rare and wonderful exception of our Good Friday win against St. Helens, a team of seasoned pros against a team of youngsters is going to provide a very one sided and unentertaining game, so squad depth is essential.

Can anyone imagine in football, if they told Man Utd they could only spend the same on wages as Leicester City, they'd have the F.A. in court in no time. They'd win too! I cannot believe for a minute that this rule would stand up to alegal challenge, and I would be delighted if Maurice Lindsay were to test this out.

the salary cap is bringing the competition closer together, and albeit very slowly but player quality is spreading out and the competition is becoming more competivte, we do need a flat rate slary cap of 1.8 million, no 50% rule, the problem is as we have found in realising briscoe is the 20.20.20 rule, thats the rule we have problems with!

AJ posted:
the salary cap is bringing the competition closer together, and albeit very slowly but player quality is spreading out and the competition is becoming more competivte, we do need a flat rate slary cap of 1.8 million, no 50% rule, the problem is as we have found in realising briscoe is the 20.20.20 rule, thats the rule we have problems with!

Well apart from the bit on the 20:20:20 rule I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried.

The flat rate salary cap is not doing as you say as the evidence shows. Before last season we were forced to release Connoly and Furner. Where did they go? Leeds, a top two side. PJ is going to Bradford and Briscoe to Hull. Bibey went to Saints, Gilmour to Saints and so the fact of the matter is when a top side releases a player they are going to another top side.

If you read the linked article it says Bradford are to match his Wigan salary. That is why he is not going to Cas or to Wakefield. They can't afford him.

So the evidence goes directly against the salary cap dong what you say it is supposed to be doing. The evidience shows it is just not working.

I also don't understand why you say scrap the 50% rule. If you did all clubs would spend to 1.8 million and several would go bust pretty quick as a result.

The cas chairman (whom Mo's remarks re salary cap are directed at) wants a LOWER flat rate salary cap and no 50% rule.

No doubt the Cas chairman thinks this will mean the Connoly's, Furners and so on will them be in his grasp.

In RU's grasp more like.

RL is a professional sport and must pay professional level wages so it can't drop the cap level dowm any lower and expect to attract people to the sport.

So since the cap does not work (as the evidence shows) it is up to the smaller clubs to get richer so they can all compete for the likes of PJ.

In Australia all the clubs generate similar incomes so they have a very different set of economics in their game. Not so here so I really don't see how anyone can conclude the cap is spreading players about when all it does is move them between the top five sides at best.

Dave