That's all well and good but I see two issues:

1. Are there enough talented kids out there who are being denied first team rugby by the likes of Rinaldi? I'm not sure there are. You run the risk of watering down the quality of RL just in order to get homegrown players in the team.

2. Any system that favoured clubs for getting homegrown talent in the first team would have to take into account where the club was. For instance it's easier for Leeds and Bradford to promote local talent as they're both clubs in RL areas. It's not the case for Quins or Crusaders. Clubs that have a harder time producing youngsters should get more of a reward.

We're talking about nearly all the clubs not being able to make a profit with the current salary cap level. How would they do if half the salaries of home grown talent don't even count towards the cap (i.e. pushing up their cost base)

I think bring the cap down to about £1.2M every club spending the maximum would make it a more even and entertaining competition. Possibly have something like U21's are excempt.

My arguement would be that although the clubs would have the ability to spend more than the cap, it would be up to them as to whether or not to do this. There would probably have to remain regulations in place to stop clubs spending money they haven't got. Similar to the one currently based on only spending a percentage of your turnover.

One of my reasons behind this view is after looking at the Melbourne fiasco. Although they cheated, part of me can understand their frustrations. A large chunk of their major players have come through their junior set up, and they couldnt afford to keep them legally. Why should a club be penalised for spending time and money helping to develop talented players to a point where they can demand massive salaries for them to then have to leave that club to earn the money they deserve?

Oh yeah, what a great quality competition that would be. It wouldn't matter that a team would be full of dross to keep within the cap, as long as each team spends the same.

I think a lot of people are undervaluing the players. If you have a quality player it is only right that player could justify a decent salary. I don't think £100k a year for a decent RL player is excessive in any way, especially considering the short career they have. Obviously a class RL player is going to be on much more, and an average player is going to be on less.

But really we should look at a cap that works at an average of £100k a player, possibly to a 20 man squad. I don't think we should limit to undervalue players.

At the same time, the argument for that player leaving goes to another club to get his wage, is also unfair and can be restricting to the player. A player isn't going to turn down £80k at Saints to get £100k at Crusaders is he? Money comes first to a degree, but they want a chance to display talent aswell. And on that basis, in order to fit in the cap we are under valueing.

So you want clubs to spend £2M on wages when they already run at a loss spending £1.65M? Where is the extra revenue going to come from? Would you be happy paying £40-50 to go to a game so clubs could afford to pay higher wages?

Gotcha

Why do you think giving players higher wages equates to better quality rugby and vice versa?

I recall Graham Lowe's comments about the full time Super League tourists. It was alon the lines that they were soft. They turn up to training in their BMWs and then sit around all day. Lads who turn up to night training after working as a plasterer etc were much better.

I think the "top" players deserve more and that clubs shouldn't be pushed into losing quality youngsters they've produced because they are penalised by the cap.
I'm all in favour of acadamy produced players having a % of their wages cap exempt.
As for other clubs who aren't producing the youth that shouldn't mean that they get the advantage of taking top youngsters that clubs like Leeds and Saints produce.

The landlord of Stoggy's would like to disagree with you.

It produces better quality for the teams that have the players.

I don't go with this argument that because players don't get the wage they want that they will go to another club, thus increasing the competition in the league. We only have to look at Australia for that, to see players leaving for a sport alien to Rugby League.

I don't see Player A leaving Saints/Leeds to get a better salary at Crusaders/Wakefield. They would have 2 options, leave the game or accept the lower wage and be dissatisfield.

The salary cap is a wonderful concept that all team sports should implement, but it should not be restrictive to the players. Like I said, IMO a decent rugbly league player should be able to earn £100k per year, and should have the opportunity to win things at the same time. I don't think that is excessive. But under the current cap limit a team can not have too many players of that level, never mind great Rugby League players.

IMO all clubs should be spending the same cap yes, but you should not penalise certain teams in order to bring them down to the level of others. It should be the other way round.