Exactly.

If Leeds, or any other club, can't afford to spend to the full salary cap, that is their problem to fix.

It isn't right to make their problem everybody else's problem.

Leeds fans demand we challenge for trophies every year

That's not really relevant. It certainly doesn't give Leeds a right to try and keep a leash on those clubs that can sustainably out-spend them at any given point in time.

Leeds should be winning trophies because they're raising the standards, not by being complicit in lowering them.

Because we have a salary cap in place. You cant have a cap and then allow teams to pay more.

Gary can only comment on our finances he wont know other clubs budgets. I doubt he even knows ours at this moment in time. If we cant afford to pay full cap after this thats the way he needs to vote (if there is even s vote).

Whilst we might not want to admit it our club is heavily in debt at the moment and whilst that debt might have been msnsgable before Covid it will make life difficult for the forseeable.

Not sure what you mean in the first sentence, im not saying teams should be allowed to pay more than the cap.

The caps already there at 2.1m for 2021 so why not leave it in place as it is? Theres no obligation for teams to spend the full cap, but the options there for teams that can. I know its in Leeds interests for the cap to be 1.8 m if they can only afford 1.8m...But its not in the interests of the players, fans or the game long term. To vote for a reduction is self serving imo.

Theres always been teams that spend less than the cap, we'd just be one of them teams for a while, better than dumbing down the whole comp yet again.

Theres 5 clubs wanting the cap to remain at 2.1m, thats potentially 1.5 million to go to the players, cant see why anyone would want to take that earning potential away from already relatively underpaid players.

Lets see where the sport is at the end of all this.

Nobody appears to have mentioned agents when it comes to salary cap. It might be £2.1 and the club only wants to spend £1.8. But an agent will push for more if they think a club has space.

I’ve always believed that the cap should rise inline with inflation. But it hasn’t.

So lets raise it and give Salford , Wakey , H.K.R and others even less chance to compete . What some of you do not get is whilst Hetherington cares about Leeds as they obviously pay his wages he also cares about R.L in general . The Marquee player was brought in for the reason of bringing quality players in to the sport and if Wire want to waste that on a near 35 year old who will have been retired 2 years then more fool them

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.