Looking at this thread as an outsider, it's good to see that many here share the view that ambitious clubs shouldn't be penalised for showing that ambition and, at the same time, maintaining the quality and appeal of the competition in what are going to be difficult and unprecedented times ahead.

With Wire's signing of Inglis today, it is obviously a warning shot to Hetherington and the others who are looking to stifle the competition simply because they can't keep up financially - it's not like this is a cap increase, it's a decrease, basically a drop in standards in the long term, as players will rightly look to Australia or RU to support their incomes.

I also can't help but feel that the talk of franchises and a restructure of the league will rear its head again soon, if these financial rumblings continue. It's obvious there are 2 tiers now financially in the present league. In these unpredictable times, it makes no sense for the financially stronger sides to be held back by other clubs... let's face it, there are a couple of clubs who should already have been kicked out of the league years ago.

Whos mentioned raising it? No ones been bothered about teams spending below the cap in the past, should we of lowered it to 1.5 mill last season to give London a chance?

If Leeds can only afford to spend 1.8m then Leeds can spend 1.8m, if others can afford to spend the current 2.1m cap, then good for them, they should be allowed to do so.

Basing strategic decisions on the answer to the question "can Salford afford it?" is not a way to run a professional sport.

The salary cap is £1m less in real terms than it should be. If Salford, Wakefield or anyone else (Leeds included) cannot afford to compete when one of the main costs is £1m less than it should be, whose fault is that? And why should it be the players who pay for that lack of growth and poor commercial performance at club level?

The question we should be asking is not "CAN Salford or Wakefield afford it?" and instead "WHY can't Salford or Wakefield afford it?".

People like Neil Hudgell and Ken Davy will always vote to supress player wages because their clubs rely on their personal investment, so keeping those costs as low as possible reduces their personal contribution. Michael Carter will always vote likewise because he's an accountant and he wants Wakefield to stay competitive as possible whilst spending as little as possible.

I hoped Leeds and Hetherington were better than that.

I think that there is a place in sport for some sort of financial-leveling, but a blanket hard cap is a blunt instrument that arguably does more harm than good.

A better solution in my opinion would be a form of financial fair play where the cap is based on a percentage of turnover. The cap already had this element, but it was abolished around 2002.

Set the cap at a percentage of club turnover, have a mechanism in place to limit the contribution of "directors loans" that will never be repaid and then force clubs to think about their wider business. If you want to compete financially with the big boys on the field, invest in growing the business off the field to pay for it.

A couple of things...

He isn't going to be a marquee player. That's Austin and Widdop.

Danny Maguire was a near 35 year old when he won his last GF. Now he was a fine SL player, but if Inglis is even 50 or 60% the player he was, then he's a better one than Maguire.

Is this proposal to lower the cap a temporary one, or would be permanent?
Is the idea to stop clubs using the cap money they've saved by giving their players a pay cut to bring in more players?

The game like other sports is facing a challenge that it is difficult to understand how we come out the other side. What is important though is that all clubs put the future of the superleague above their own intentions.While I think it is important that we have strong fiscal governance in place which helps teams manage their finances at this difficult time I personally believe that lowering the salary cap is not the way out of this challenge. Actually if clubs have independent financial support outside of their business model then I would go so far as advocating an additional marquee allowance for them.
My reasoning is that for all sports it is going to be television contracts that sustain them.I think Rugby league can still provide a spectacle with reduced crowds and atmosphere due to the pace of the game and the onfield action. The bigger the stars like Inglis and Sonny Bill that we attract the better the TV deal. RL could be attractive to TV as our lower salary cap and player wage bills potentially means that they get more for their money comparably to football and RU. In the short term this might lead to an unbalanced competition with a couple of dominant teams however the TV money will be the difference in keeping clubs solvent. As a Leeds fan I would be happy to suffer a couple of lean years if it means that clubs survive and the wider profile of the game rises through greater exposure and higher profile stars.By the nature of this progression potentially more individual wealthy investors may become involved with clubs.
This may offend traditionalists but a strong competition with money at the top of the game will filter down to all levels and also the higher profile will get more kids into rugby as their sport of choice.

Normaly I would say the more money in the sport the better. On the other hand I think voting on anything like an amended salary cap, either way, in the present conditions is ridiculous. Lets get through the current situation and take stock of where we are at the end. Clubs & owners will be in a much better position to make informed decisions

Eventually then you will finish up with 4 clubs playing Super League as the rest can not afford it .

Your having a laugh if you think he will not be a Marquee player , with the best will in the world the main reason he is coming is for the money . As good as Inglis was i am not sure a 60% version of him would control a Grand Final like Mags . There again if he proves me wrong you would finally reach your Holly Grail

Again, ask why those clubs can't afford it and what they're doing to grow the business. That's the way to deal with any inequality in the league. We don't achieve anything by letting the tail wag the dog.

Pre salary cap days it was the wealthy clubs getting into financial strife. Wigan had to sell Central Park to survive. Leeds was within huge trouble and in serious danger of going bankrupt.

Lets see what financial position the sport and the clubs are in following this pandemic before deciding what road to take.

You don't need a salary cap to encourage clubs to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. You need good management.

Exactly and thats why we need a salary cap.

I fear for the long term future of professional RL in the UK. My perception is of a long slow decline that has resulted in less money, in real terms, coming into the game both through the turnstiles and TV money. The result of this has IMO been that the standard of the competition has not kept pace with the NRL. It could well be that the loss of income this year may see that situation worsen and start a vicious circle of reduction in income and decline in the standard of the game in this country. Whilst some clubs may be able to ride through the problem if they have strong bank balances and or wealthy owners. If there are not enough viable clubs to have a sensible league, then the Super League may cease to exist as we currently know it. With the level of Debt Leeds must have on the books following the magnificent redevelopment of our stadium, I'm unsure how we will fare financially. Worrying time indeed