I am sorry, but can anyone name one benefit if the cap were to be increased? I can think of 10 disadvantages. But not one benefit. If anything, I would lower the cap.

As has been said, money isn't the reason necessarily players are leaving, lowering the cap would start to make it a reason so do t do that!

Raising the cap would allow more average ageing Aussies over paraded as "marquee" signings.

Allowing clubs 1 marquee exemption will lead to players demanding over the top salaries when they know a club hasn't filled that quota - how quickly before we see a dire player paraded as marquee just because they're free on the cap? There aren't enough "marquees" in the game for every club in super league to have one.

Reward clubs for home grown players. Reward them more for home grown players who go on to play for England/ knights. Reward english players for making the world XIII by making them exempt for any club in England (and thus can demand the salary they are worth in england, whether that be at their home town club or elsewhere) - the salary cap can then becomes less populatedas it's only for bringing the best British talent into clubs and the best from abroad, bigger share for everyone, players stay cos they can get more money elsewhere

Any club in administration is refused entry to super league for the new company.

Genuine question (because I know people have different views), do you think the rapid rise of Man City over the last few years is a good or bad thing for football in the UK?

I think I know what you are getting at would it not be great if we can find a lot of rich Arab's to come and buy our clubs, and buy who they want to with no cap to worry about,

but to work we would need more then one it would not happen but we can dream

Bang on, particularly this part.

This assumes that the Cap is at the ‘goldilocks’ number, not too high, not too low, but just right. Im not sure why we would assume this figure is exactly right.

Bollocks. Sorry but that is nonsense. There are only going to be 12 Super League clubs, there are comfortably more than 12 players in Rugby League who could realistically be ‘marquee’, Hell there is more than 12 in SL who could be ‘marquee’.

The SC can’t achieve that. There should be rewards for home-grown players and for british squads, but the SC isn’t the place to do it. It would make british players more expensive, concentrate them at fewer clubs and entrench the haves and have-nots. Lowering the cap for overseas players also doesn’t guarantee we will have fewer, it leaves us with the very real possibility we have the same number of overseas players, they are just of inferior quality.

The SC is supposed to spread talent, reduce wage inflation, keep clubs solvent, and is a levelling measure. It doesn’t do all these, it cant do all these. Lets have 4 different measures to address 4 different problems.


Why would anyone then buy a club which is in administration?

Not exactly, and of course we're in a completely different universe in terms of the numbers, but what I'm getting at is the question asked - about naming a single benefit of a higher cap ( though of course strictly I'm talking about cap reform rather just a flat increase )

One of the things that the cap is doing, for example, is frustrating what Koukash seemingly would like to achieve, which is to RAPIDLY bring Salford to the top table (in every sense of the phrase) - just as City were quickly transformed. Koukash (I think) believes that with money and star players he can quickly transform Salford, including making a massive impact on the size of their fan-base. I applaud the man. Huge numbers of know-it-alls assert that he has no clue, that such a plan will lead to disaster, "look what happened to club x, y, z, etc." and that the only sensible course of action is a long, slow and patient build up.

Maybe, but people like Koukash want to act quickly and expect quick results. Good luck to the man I say. Naysayers can lecture him all they like about doing it more slowly, or 'investing in the sport' (rather than one club) but he probably won't (and shouldn't) give a t**s what these armchair businessmen (me included) think.

I absolutely agree that it makes sense to do what we can to have mechanisms to prevent owners bankrupting clubs, but there simply has to be a smarter way than simply blocking money out of the game. In Koukash we have a bloke who has money ready* to bring superstar players to the North West of England and SL. That is a GOOD THING. Surely we're smart enough to find a way to let him do it. It's not my club, but I want to want to watch the best.

( *For those who insist that Koukash is all hot-air, I think you're wrong, but even if you're right, it doesn't matter, it's not about Koukash per-se, but about deliberately blocking money out of the game as a matter of policy).

If we increased the cap we could also spend more money on bringing in better players, and keeping some of those we are losing.

Well put. Precisely.

The cap is realistically going up anyway, in a sensible way.
Homegrown players (ie the ones we want to keep) will count as only £ 100k from next year, so clubs with a good youth setup could easily spend over 2 million.
Theres no point in upping the cap generally as it'll just get spent on players that will hold development of our future stars back.
The good Dr says he's commited to Salford, let him plow millions into a world class academy at Salford and grow a world class side. Or does he just want to buy instant success? Thats how you make a good team, not how you make a great club.

I wouldn’t just up the cap generally, because whilst it might somewhat mitigate the negative effects of the cap, it doesn’t solve the problems we need to solve. I think we need to look again at what we are trying to achieve and the ways we can achieve those things.

There is no necessity for us to have a cap at all, if we have measures to spread talent, to slow wage inflation, to help clubs stay solvent, and to level the playing field.