Why would we just reduce the salary cap when there is no need to?
How will the game be stronger if money is taken from some clubs and given to others?
The Championship has a £300k salary cap, which is affordable.
SL has a £1.65m salary cap, which should be affordable.
The reason for this is as I suggested before.
Some people - and I don't blame them and am not having a go - merely think in terms of what is good for their club and their own ambitions, and that is for their club to be able to access the top division again.
It doesn't matter whether it's good for the game as a whole all that matters is what's best for their them and maybe not even their club who like Batley don't want promotion. They are only aping the behaviour of how Superleague directors think and work.
SKY are simply not going to wear it, the rich men who control RL now are not going to wear it either. You cannot look SKY and the rich benefactors in the face and take half the money they will argue is their money and they generate and give it to small clubs. It just cannot be done and the RFL cannot force it either, they are as much the serfs of SKY and rich SL chairmen as anyone.
But what do people think will happen to our top clubs if shorn of half a million pounds?? What will happen to my club Hunslet if you give them half a million pounds.
That doesn't seem to be explained in this outbreak of sporting communism. It's the same as P & R yesterday someone explained how his club should be able to access promotion within one season.....
And that was the end of his point, that was his goal, there was no thought at all to what happens once his dream is reached. No pro players to keep them up, no money to buy any, none available anyway, 99% chance of straight back down but as another poster said "what's wrong with that".
Well nothing because it's only a game.
But this is the problem of not thinking beyond one's fantasy, Up go Leigh and 25 defeats and 4,500 crowds later the cupboard is bare and the dream is over for several years,
But that doesn't matter because If Wigan have a bad season they can go down, other clubs can raid their playing roster, and they can pull another 3478 crowd against Whitehaven like they did last time.
SKY and their rich camp followers have bought the game. If that's bad for the game then fine campaign for them to go away and let's get back to 1995. I'm not being sarcastic either, I can watch Hunslet Warrios as readily as Leeds Rhinos. I'll still be staunchly following the game even if tens of thousands of others won't be, even if the salary cap for all clubs is £200,000. Even if we're no longer on TV.
As you say Dave..........
"RL is a very resilient game. It has never been in a very fortunate position financially, like some other sports yet it has always survived.If Sky pulled out (not sure why this keeps coming up!) but the game would adapt and move on".
Which is 100% spot on and it'd move on with the support of it's hard core of staunch traditional fans who would not wear a hybrid game (why Union would accept this I dunno, England have just beaten NZ). But this is never going to happen either, still we need some bogeyman to justify the unjustifiable, because good business logic doesn't justify it one little bit.
But then this is sport, it's about hopes, dreams and passions, it's not about good business sense.
The irony for me is that the whole history of the game is full of rich businessmen and their sponsor friends trying to buy success, trying to pay more money to players than the next club. Throwing money they haven't got or they know will run out at a dream that ends in tears. When a number of clubs actually do it so well that they secure the top division for themselves and rest end up with no chance, then we get these calls for "central planning for the benefit of all".
I'm not sure sporting communism will work in the capitalist world of sport, but it depends on your definition of "work". If your club can get promotion once every few years only to tumble back down, then that "works" for you.