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

We don't. There are clubs that are fiscally responsible and would continue to be with or without a salary cap.

The ones that aren't will not be saved by a salary cap. Exibit A: The number of insolvency events occuring within the salary cap era.

Do you mean like what we have had since the inception of Super League?

Does the sport really need to be such a money dominated thing though? Maybe going back to a semi- professional sport would be surprisingly refreshing......
Just a thought

No i mean 4 clubs playing in Super League not 12 like now

I depends on your definition of "massively". I think there are more clubs that are, or should be, capable of spending to a salary cap level that was set back in 2002 during ordinary times and should be capable of maintaining a level of pay that is on parity with inflation.

But I'd reiterate again - instead of saying "there is no money in the sport so we can't raise the salary cap, even in line with inflation", we should be saying "what the hell is going on a club level to create a situation where there so little cash in the sport, we have to pay the players £1m less in real terms?". That's the real issue here - why are clubs playing in front of declining crowds, why aren't they increasing revenue and why are, in some cases, practically giving away tickets and sponsorship? Name me another professional sport that has seen such a lack of growth.

The line of thinking that we have to supress the salary cap year after year is a false economy. It devalues the product, makes recruitment and retention harder and makes it more difficult to sell what is increasingly becoming a "Pound Shop Sport" to new audiences, sponsors and broadcasters.

And above all else it is an issue of fairness. The club owners are frankly taking the mick out of the playing talent, asking them to play more and more, asking them to bear the brunt of the current situation with actual pay cuts, and imposing real-terms cuts for two decades. If your employer tried the same shtick you'd move to a competitor - except that it's much more difficult for RL players to do the same because the clubs have effectively colluded with each other to keep renumeration low.

I think there should be a cap however I think it should be linked to either income or profitability.

If you can earn more you can spend more. That should incentivise clubs to raise their income.

But limit the types of income that qualifies. No loans for instance, including director loans. Then if a rich owner wants to spend money on his club he can do. But he has to be prepared to lose that money, not put a charge on the club. Or an owner can do that but it can’t be used to buy players. They can do it to invest in the club infrastructure instead.

We need to do what we can to avoid a Bradford situation. A series of clauses in the cap relating to financial health of the club would make sense to me and encourage the right attitudes.