You think we have rows over selection policy now? Imagine adding the accusation "It's just a way for the RFL to subsidise their favourite clubs" …

Was it not the the year the Premier League was formed as a separate competition from the Football League? Is it any more arbitrary than asking "how many teams have won SL since 1996"?

Not sure anyone wants to create an artificially competitive league. However the salary cap aims to create a competitive league. I guess many Rugby League fans want a more competitive league because it is better for the sport, competitive games are more interesting to watch.







The better run clubs do win things. The less well run clubs do not.

the PL was formed in 1992



which means my answer was wrong and 5 clubs have actually won it since 1990



though i dont really think you can say Leeds won the PL in 1991 because it didnt exist, they won the top division which was division 1

I stand corrected.

the SC however makes it artificially competitive,









we shouldnt have less well run clubs, we should have a league full of clubs which are run very well, each striving to be better run in an endless search for improvement and a competitive edge



if we did this then the SC would be needless, but in an effort to cover for failure we brought in a counter-productive SC

It is certainly true that the salary cap makes the league more competitive. However I don't see how that can be described as artificial - it really is more competitive. Just like the rule about each team having the same number of players on the pitch makes the league more competitive.







In order for one club to be better run others must be less well run. But yes the bar should be constantly moving forward. Which, of course, the salary cap encourages by stopping clubs from attempting to short cut to success by spend more than other clubs (and often they) can afford.







The salary cap allows the well run clubs to succeed as opposed to those who have the largest financial backing. Seems good to me.

I beleive that the only salary cap that should be in place is the % of turnover element, thus stopping reckless directors putting clubs in peril whilst also rewarding enterprise as clubs will be further incentivised to increase turnover.

except it doesnt really does it,



and it is artificial because the salary cap as tool, has only one use take from the top and give to the bottom, there is no competition there, clubs arent earning this edge









why is being successful and well run allowing you to be able to spend more a shortcut?



no it doesnt, it doesnt allow any club to succeed, its aim is to make success transient, there are numerous rules which we could put in place which would stop clubs buying all the talent, there are many rules which would actually encourage clubs to invest in what we want them to invest in and clubs which grow their off the field operations should be rewarded for that, and sometimes a well run club may need to invest on the field to grow those things of it

Shall we snip Federer's strings or remove Tiger's putter while we are it?



Don't let clubs get in silly debt like football. If the salary cap helps this great. It should not however be used to give weaker clubs a foot up.

See my earlier post.

Yes sir. I agree