What do we think of that?

JP isn't impressed according to his comments to the Telegraph. He forsees SL losing a lot of talent to Australia (no bad thing internationally).. and for me it could also see more going to RU in the future. I

I'd have like to have seen an increase but i'm not surprised, not sure if i'm being syincal or just plain wrong but not increasing the cap will line the pockets further of the club owners, where the crowds pulled in could (cap permitting) increase spending power of these clubs... I know we have to be sensible in these difficult financial times but Australia are increasing their cap (as JP refers to) yet we're not...

I think the arguments could go both ways but i do believe that the cap could have done with been increased. i think £2 million would be a reasonable figure. However I do feel there needs to be stricter control on what clubs can spend. i still dont understand how clubs are making a loss under the salary cap

There's a wide opinion that most clubs 'get round' the cap anyway. So does it really matter?

I would have to agree with that. I think 2 million would have been a perfect figure.

That said though, reading those rules, I take it Leeds have 1.75 million to spend each year? And plus on top of that you have prize money, as it says the cap is before prize money. So effectively you could be spending 2 million anyway.

Yes a good point. Trouble is though, the clubs could then lose those players once developed to the required standard to RU and the NRL..

A lot of clubs still can't afford to spend the full cap, so it needs to be kept where it is.

Who are you talking about?

Really it should be part of the licence granted that you can demonstrate your abillity to be able to utilize the full cap (if required) without it effecting your finances.

I would guess there is only Cas, Wakefield, and Salford that don't utilize the full cap. And in all honesty, that is their problem. Cas and Wakefield should merge, creating a much stronger cap, and then you would then have another team able to utilize the full cap allowance. As for Salford, I am sure the RFL will get the message in the future.

I dare you to post that on the respective boards.

I agree BTW

Correct. How long can we as a competition be held back by 2 bit clubs who will never be able to spend the cap.. who can't get a new stadium.. it's an embarrasment.

There are 14 SL clubs at present, how many are spending their full allowance?

Increasing the cap to allow some to spend more will only increase the disparity between those that have and those that have not.

The SL clubs IMO should only look to increase the cap once say 70% of the clubs (for arguments sake) are hitting the maximum.

Gary Hetherington said at the start of the season that only 3 clubs will not be in a position to utilize the full cap. Even if that was really 4 clubs, that is within your criteria tvoc.

I agree on your point by the way, but strongly feel as in all sports it should be the case of the weaker to aspire to be as strong as the others. It is up to the RFL to ensure that happens. We could still be here in another 20 years and clubs like Wakefield and Salford would not be in a position to spend the full cap. Is that really what we want in the future?

Like I said, it should be part of the licence agreement to demonstrate you will be in a position to utilize the full cap if required.

What do you mean "what am I talking about" ? What didn't you understand?

It's a nice idea that all clubs should be able to afford to spend the full cap. In fact, I'd like to see a mandatory minimum spend in the rules. However, whilst we have a number of clubs who can't spend the cap, then increasing it will only lead to disparity in the league. That's not their problem, that's our (the sport) problem.

only if significantly more than half the supporters of each club were to embrace the new team and not walk away