A few questions (none of which are rhetorical) I'd be fascinated to know the answers to:



1. How competitive is SL [ioutside[/i of the traditional big spenders i.e. Leeds, Wigan, Bradford, St. Helens (perhaps Warrington)? I'm talking purely about league positions (assuming 5th or 6th is now 1st) which I know is not an ideal measure but it's a starting point.



2. Which club last won SL, or just the league, running a modest budget in comparison to other big-spending clubs?



3. Based on the figures published (and I know they aren't comprehensive) what is the relationship between budget and final league position?

You mean how competitive are the whipping boy SL rabble clubs among themselves? Hull FC come out on top as they've finished top of the rabble 6 times, Castleford 4 times top of the rabble during the earlier years of SL, Huddersfield 3 times top of the rabble in more recent years, Catalan twice in recent years and London twice during the early years of SL. There is more than likely a strong (if not direct) relationship between the levels of investment in the respective playing squads of clubs at the time and their finishing positions on the ladder. Castleford may be the exception as they were well coached by Stuart Raper - he may have been the most influential factor during their relative 'nosebleed' periods on the SL ladder.





Leigh in 1981/82.





I'd need to see those figures but I'd expect that relationship to be pretty conclusive in respect of it's influence on any clubs league position, and certainly more influential than whoever happens to be the coach... with the occasional exception as noted earlier.

I don't think there's been a budget SL/League-winning team (along the lines of, say, a Derby County under Brian Clough) in my lifetime. I mean, I've heard all kind of tales about such-and-such a club spending less, improving their academy etc. But, since the beginning of SL at least, the most successful sides (Bradford, Saints & Leeds) have always spent big in relation to other clubs.



RL fans are infinitely imaginative when it comes to providing reasons for the failure (in their eyes) of SL. The competition structure is wrong, certain clubs are "more professional" than others when it comes to junior development, the salary cap prevents "high achievers" from "realising their potential", the game's administration is "corrupt" or swayed in its decisions by the bigger clubs, Venus is at aphelion whilst Mars is currently traversing the constellation of Orion etc etc.



Yet, strangely, only a handful are willing to promote the most obvious theory of them all: money and the (if not proven beyond reasonable doubt, highly probable) relationship between the total amount spent on players and trophies in the bank.



Rugby League history, like all history, is consensus driven, highly mythological and always written after the fact. How we arrive at the those myths which define the sport is an insanely complex process which I don't have time to go into and I'm not sure I understand anyway. But we must recognise that many of the "truths" we hold on to are very often distortions of reality. As a Saints fan I've gained enormous satisfaction from listening to and passing on successful (and less so) histories of the club. Under McCrae, Hanley, Millward and Anderson we played some outstanding football and won more trophies than I could dream of. Yet, throughout that period - even though a familiar voice at the back of my mind was chirping some inconvenient truths - I always found it far easier to buy into the myth that our success was attributable to having the "best coach", the "most talented players" and a greater "desire" than the competition. In other words - we won because we deserved to and for absolutely noble reasons. Now, I wouldn't dream of suggesting none of what I've said is true because Millward was a good coach and Keiron Cunningham was a fantastic player etc. Nevertheless, it is a highly mythological re-telling of the past not least because of the obvious omission about money and the colossal quantities we needed to fund it.



Without world record fees paid out for Newlove and Sculthorpe plus generous wages for any number of top quality players (the recruitment drive began under McClennan and continued right up to Potter) it would have taken a miracle to win the league. And the same can be said of Wigan prior to SL, Bradford and Leeds.



The last thing I want to do is to concede we somehow "bought" those titles like a cheap Christmas tree in Poundland. But when you spend the best part of a million pounds (a fantastic sum even today, which, incidentally, we didn't have) on two world class players precisely WHAT are you paying for?



I often hear the old adage [i"Money doesn't buy success"[/i. Fans point to the vast sums Leeds invested in the likes of Hanley, Laughton and company to try and break Wigan's (equally money-enhanced) stranglehold on the league during the 90s. But whilst their attempts ultimately proved fruitless it's not like they were languishing at the foot of the table, either.



If we look only at SL it's very difficult to pick out one obvious example of a club which has both consistently spent big on players and been near the bottom of the table.



Fans simply love to argue that SL isn't competitive. I think they couldn't be more wrong, if you factor out the most destabilizing force in the competition - money. The clubs who invested the most have, since the very beginning, been very competitive with those spending similar amounts (yes Leeds have enjoyed a lengthy run, but it's not as if they've been pulverising their peers in the lead-up to the final). Meanwhile, below position 4 (or 5), there has been a similarly healthy mix-up in positioning.



Surely, instead of giving consideration to the, quite frankly, lunatic arguments proposed by some to raise the cap even further we should - at the very least - think about taking a leap of faith in the opposite direction: lowering the cap, creating a "minimum spend" or an absolute and only limit? I'm not suggesting this would suddenly create a utopia. But it would be a refreshingly novel experience beginning a season in which spending is the same across the board.



In my view we have to take steps to break the stranglehold money has on the sport. There's nothing worse than a fan of the top clubs browbeating the likes of Salford, London or the lower league clubs for not being "worthy of success" whilst his own club stands atop the league on a pyramid of cash provided by someone who has never played the game in his life.



Money might not guarantee success, but only in the same way that wearing a life-jacket might not absolutely prevent drowning.

Leeds last year, in fact Leeds for the last few years.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "modest budget". Leeds are the biggest spenders each and every year, but often spend on players wages a couple of hundred thousand below the salary cap. They do however spend a significant amount on other aspects of the playing side such as the academy and physio/conditioning/sports science.

Someone named leigh as the last club to win the title without paying money out,sadly thats not the case leigh that season broke the club record in signing ian potter from warrington if I remember righty and a figure of around £50,000 which even today would be massive never mind 1981/82 also I think a few more players were purchased as the season went along.



Its the age old tale of money does win you sucess,admittly you need the right coach as leigh had with murphy then and coupled with the development of john woods and des drummond along with the clever signings of potter ,martyn and others who seem to have slipped mi owd yead