A salary cap is the best way to address the second goal (spending beyond means), but the first goal is better acheived with a more structured type of squad control ( kind of like the 20/20 rule ). For me, I'd be even more aggressive on the number of players, but looser on the salary, more like 13/100 or something. That kind of system *forces* you to bring good players through because you've got max 13 stars...but, *if you can afford it* you can at least get the top stars to bring in the sponsors, media interest, etc. 13 superstars is enough to put a lot of bums on a lot a seats but not enough to totally dominate.

If I've read the cap regulations correctly, transfer fees are exempt - so as well as Joel's wages he could have picked up the 250k transfer fee paid by Saracens.

If you mean Wigan could have given the £250k from Joel's transfer to Sam, no, that would not be legal. He would need to pay tax on it and it would count on the cap as it would just be Wigan paying him an extra £250k. Unless Sam owned Joel personally.

It's possible I'm misinterpreting the 2009 cap regulations but pages 30/31 state:

5.0 NON-SALARY CAP RELEVANT INCOME
5.1 Sale Proceeds from the sale of assets.
5.2 Transfer Fee Income received.
5.3 Any Challenge Cup Prize Money as per the schedule issued from time to time should be excluded from income providing the following is observed.
5.3.1 The prize money is paid to the players within 60 days of receipt by the club.
5.3.2 Any excess of bonus over prize money received and paid out by the club is
classed as Salary Cap relevant cost.
5.3.3 Any excess of prize money over bonus paid out may be included as Salary Cap relevant income.
For the avoidance of doubt, any payments paid out by clubs prior to receipt of prize money, cannot be retrospectively or notionally set off against prize money.