Then that's a nonsense - unless they sold it for more than it was valued at.

Your Profit & Loss report doesn't care whether you've £XX worth of cash or £XX worth of fixed assests.

An accountant (which I'm not) may talk about [icash profit[/i or something like that, but i think that's more for monitoring your company's postion than end of the day profit.

Before Leeds win a CC, and can then count themselves amongst the good teams of the SL era.

It isnt voluntary, the RFL (or Super League ltd) impose sanctions for going above that level.



If it were a case where all chairmen had simply decided to pay up to £1.65m then you would be right, but it isnt. They are forced to do so.



And a player would simply need to prove that his earnings were limited by this to have reason to challenge it. I doubt it would stand up

there clearly is a restriction or we wouldnt have a salary cap

the sale of assets did take Leeds into a profit. It was however a one of expenditure (on the Southstand) that took them into a loss



If you discount the one off income of the sale, and the one of expenditure on the southstand. We operated at a profit

for some reason you are comparing a single business operating in an open market to a group of business operating in a restricted market.



People in the civil service have the option of going to do the same job in the private sector for more money. Market forces will judge their worth. Chris Moyles can go work for Sky TV, ITV, or any numer of radio stations, again Market Forces will judge his worth.



An RL player only has a limited number of clubs who have all together limited a players potential for earning. Leon Pryce cant go play for Wigan on a £2m a year deal because Wigan and Saint helens have agreed together to limit wages. Chris Moyles possible earnings at ITV arent limited by what the BBC and ITV have agreed. This is a huge difference

On the SC itself.



A salary Cap imo can be a good thing. It can be used to force clubs to do what we want and reward them for doing so.



This SC is rubbish. It doesnt do any of the things it was supposed to and has been an all round failure

but maintanence of the ground is on going, but you cant sell your assets more than once.

Yes maintenance of the ground is ongoing, but the outlay on the southstand wasnt standard maintenance, it wont be paid out again-ever. It was a one off expenditure

if Wigan can get a third party sponsor to pay £2m for Leon Pryce's salary then there is no restriction - which is surely a good thing, as it rewards clubs that have strong commercial and business acumen, and stops clubs spending money they dont have.

only if that company has no relationship with the club at all. Which makes it very difficult, nigh on impossible. Which is another poor aspect of this SC.



And if Wigan can afford it, it stops them paying out what they can afford. And neither does it stop them paying out £1.65m if they dont have £1.65m

It was an example of wage restrictions that aren't illegal. The fact that it is a single business (assuming you're talking about the civil service reference) in an open market compared to a group of business operating in a restricted market doesn't matter. If a civil servant wants to do a certain job in that industry his individual wages are capped at a certain level, an RL players is not within that wage budget.











RL players can go to the NRL, or they can play RU, there are options there for them. Given there are outside employers available, it isn't as restricted a market as you suggest it is. As you suggest, market forces are at work. If the player does not feel that the wage he is being offered by an RL club is enough, he is free to attempt to improve that wage elsewhere, just like a civil servant going to a private firm. You can't have it both ways, you appear to be suggesting that an RL player shouldn't have to change job for a pay rise, but a civil servant should.