I can't figure it out whether its 100k per player, or up to a total of 100k in total.

If you've produced a player who is current in the knights or England squad, you get a certain figure extra on the cap, if that player also plays for you, that figure is doubled. If said player plays for another side, they get the same amount.

It means what it says on the tin so far as I can see. Clubs who develop players who end up in the ETS or Knights squad get allowances: two per player. If the player was developed by AND plays for a club both allowances go to the one club; if the player was developed in one club but plays for another when in the ETS/Knights then they get one allowance and the current team get the other. So, Wakey won't get any allowances at all so far as I know because I don't think they have developed anyone towards either team and nor did they have any players in 2011 who were in either team but developed elsewhere. The maximum allowances can reach is £100,000 above the salary cap. I don't know how the finances work in practical terms because the RFL has not disclosed that bit (surprise, surprise) but if the allowances are on a sliding scale, as apparently they are, one would assume that those in the Knights attract a lower allowance than those in the ETS.

No I couldn't figure that one out either. I wonder if that's been kept deliberately vague in order to allow the big spenders of Leeds, Warrington and Wigan freedom to crash the salary cap?

Yup, thats obviously it.

Why are people finding this so difficult?

'Clubs....will be given dispensation to spend up to £100,000 more than the £1.65m salary cap limit'

£100K max in total. In line with the way other maximum exemption thresholds are given under the regulations.

There'll be monetary examples included when the updated Operational Rules are published. (A general press release isn't the place for them).

Then why not raise the cap £100,000?

It may have been one of several options proposed.

There isn't that much widespread support for such a simplistic approach though is there?

This way, Clubs are incentivised to invest in player development. There's also a clear link to improving the national team.

Once you argue that these are activities that should be encouraged, it makes sense to outline criteria that must be met to be entitled to claim the exemption.

If the RFL want to put the focus on youth then why not have a percentage of any home grown players wage not count to the cap.

For example, home grown players salary only count at 60% on the cap.

That way all teams would focus on youth, teams would be able to keep the eastmonds, tomkins, Grahams etc.

It would be less complicated than the current format being talked about.

To be honest, there are all manner of potential schemes that have merit. You seem to ultimately agree with the ends, though not the means, so it's just a moot point.

My guess (and it is only a guess) would be that an approach such as you suggest has been discussed. The fact is that after whatever discussions have taken place, it is the approach with the link to the England ETS and Knights that has been agreed.

The arguments for this approach were obviously compelling enough to reach a strong enough consensus to ratify the amendment.

Personally, I don't have a format that I would particularly favour.

At least the RFL are trying to keep English players in super league and that's a good thing. I think we can all agree with that.

But they aren't Pete. Do you really think these allowances will actually be spent on English players? This whole situation came about because Wigan needed a centre and couldn't get one because they didn't have enough on the cap to get a quality player. So they moaned about the cap and got these dispensations passed with no thought put into the decision. The day after Leneghan boasts about now being in a position to sign a £100k+ a year NRL centre.

Clubs will earn these allowances (And the selections of the elite players will be completely spurious and designed to help certain clubs, such as Joel Tomkins being named in this years list) but there is nothing stopping them spending the money on NRL players. You earn the max cap exemption of £100k for having two English players in the list, according to what I've read in the statement. 2? It's pathetic. It's not like clubs can even afford the increases. We can't as a prime example and I'd be disappointed if we used them as all it would do is add to the financial losses we make.

I'm not going to bag the RFL yet until I see what they put in place and I totally understand it.

I still think home grown players salary should only count as 50/60% on the cap. That would encourage teams to invest in youth, we would keep our best young players in super league.

I also think it would free up cap space to bring quality nrl players to super league instead of over hill Aussies looking for a pay day.

I'd also go down the Aussie route abd say we will only pick players from super league for England.