Damien

80,256 at today's SOO.

Got another email today, on the back of today's SOO, about buying Wembley tickets.

I know, it was a general comment to the post I replied to about the complexities of concussion and its symptoms.

I much preferred the old rule where it was an automatic 2 week lay off. No subjectivity involved and no one put under pressure to play or pass someone they shouldnt. Neither can the tests be fudged which even the players mock for their ease to pass. Obviously more serious concussions should then be longer.

Some of the worst concussions I ever had, with hindsight really, are from cracking tackles where I got smashed. These weren't high tackles at all but to my torso where my head rocked back due to the force and/or hit the ground.

Well done to Hull KR's medical staff for doing their job and making the right call. It's not an easy job and medical staff are often under immense pressure to get players back out on the field. Good stuff and the way it should be.

The SL salary cap isn't a good salary cap and in real terms is now less than it was in 2001, when it was first introduced.

An amazing turnaround. Queensland were completely dominated and outplayed in that first match and not many would have bet they would have won game 2 and 3.

The argument is basically sign a decent, solid, ready made player for 40k or spend 3 years investing in a player who may or may not make it then may eventually want 70k if they do.

That is exactly what the clubs are saying. And clubs at all levels do it all the time. In RU its pretty rife.

By all accounts it isn't a case of better, it's a case of cheaper.

If that is in anyway accurate it's absolutely fantastic.

Yeah that's what I have said. It's current guise suits the big clubs as much as any of the smaller ones, perhaps more so.

I mean if we have expressions of interest from 5 parties plus the NRL then we really must be doing something right and should just keep doing what we are doing. It's obviously working a treat.

It's really not how it works and is a silly example. If no one is paying 150k then they obviously aren't worth 150k, that is quite clear. That said Club A not paying 150k because of the salary cap is directly limiting that player's earning. Whether or not club X, Y and Z is able or willing to pay that doesn’t change that. It has already been limited and is still a limit on what they could have earned if there were no artificial ceiling. You are arguing against yourself here. The salary cap limits what any club can spend, so it does restrict your earnings as a player. It's not a free market if every team is working under the same artificial ceiling. In reality we are talking about a fixed sized amount of money and you are always taking away from one player to pay another more. In reality most clubs often operate close to the salary cap so its not like other clubs can just automatically offer what a player is worth either, just what they are allowed to within the constraints of the salary cap. Blaming certain clubs as being lazy for not affording expensive players is not really the case either. The cap prevents wealthier or better-run clubs from spending more too even if they have the resources. It’s certainly not about being lazy it’s more about being restricted by the rules in place. Of course this is quite willingly in some cases. I do find the obsession that some have with limiting players earnings as bizarre and it is certainly something they wouldn't tolerate in their own careers.

So why do all the big clubs want it? Leeds have traditionally been the most pro salary cap club.

Saw this earlier and thought it was the same kind of vague article that we have seen previously. It covers all bases without really saying anything.

Pretty much what I'd expect from Wigan and tallies with my thoughts: Speaking in his pre-match press conference ahead of Friday night’s clash with Huddersfield Giants, he said: “It certainly will (change strategy) for some, it’s going to do. “If that’s what the rule is, then it’s clearly encouraging that (more overseas players), isn’t it? “Whether I believe in it or not, it’s a fact that there’s going to be more overseas players in the competition.” Peet continued: “It’s certainly more geared towards clubs with less productive academies, but it’s still going to be each club’s individual decision as to how they put their squad together. “There are different ways of looking at it. Sometimes you can bring players in from overseas and they can enhance your club, they can inspire the next crop of British players. “I don’t have a strong opinion about it, but the fact is it’s going to make it more difficult for young British players.” https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/wigan-warriors-coach-hits-back-at-quota-change-as-less-productive-academies-to-benefit

Other sports happily use this kind of data to sell themselves and push for more. RL should do likewise.

I'll change my pretty good to really good then! Whether the sport likes it or not it is in a competitive market and in competition with other sports. Some kids already turn their noses up at RL as they see it as not worth it. I can't see how this move will improve that situation.

Football has no issue with youngsters playing the game or a conveyer belt of talent coming through to professional clubs. The allure of playing in the Premier League is massive and practically every kid in this country wants to do so. That appeal is increased by all of the top stars and internationals playing from elsewhere and the English lads who do make it are playing at an elite level in the games richest league. There are also 3 other divisions where you can earn a pretty good wage too. Contrast that to RL where we are looking to limit already poor wages further by importing 2nd rate overseas players on the cheap. These players arent going to materially enhance the competition or make it any more desirable (bar the odd fluke signing). Player wages being suppressed makes the game a less attractive option for any youngster. Similarly does less focus on youth development and fewer options professionally because clubs decide to sign some Queensland Cup player for 40k because its easier and cheaper than developing your own over 2-3 years.

The commercially viable clubs want the salary cap because it allows them to stay at the top without really competing financially with each other for players. It also prevents some usurper coming in and spending more money to build a team. They are for the cap as much as anyone, traditionally anyhow. Every mechanism in the cap, club trained players allowances, marquees etc is weighted towards these clubs and the status quo. All the cards are stacked in their favour and so any club wishing to join that club cant outspend them. That club also has to overcome inherent advantages when it comes to things like developing players and the associated allowances.

It limits player wages as a whole, I have never mentioned individual salaries. Although by association I think it does that too because it distorts the market. As this quota change will do further. Using your example if a club is spending a quarter of the cap on 24 players then the player wages of those 24 players are limited enormously. If a club's overall wage bill is limited then players wages are too, no matter how you dress it up. Common sense dictates that. Sorry I think you are just splitting hairs here but happy to agree to disagree.

The salary cap is a means to limit wages, simple as that.

It will impact opportunities because English players currently get a chance for those clubs in the Championship.