wonder how much in percentage of the £1.85m salary cap is actually commentating on the live games, ie Eddie, Phil, Stuart etc etc ....are they good value for money..??? would we be better off getting rid of the Marquee presenter and having to cheaper presenters in his place who may know twice as much..??

I'd quite like to know what Phil's cut is of his "family" business selling contracted RL players to RU clubs?

Sorry, I obviously mean "retired* RL players

What relevance is S/C percentage ??

Everyone knows about injuries, especially if Wigan or Leeds are on Sky, less so if its Cas or Salford.
As others have said, it would just be some kind of "swingometer" for Carney or Clark to get over excited about.

How about comparing the salaries of the coaches, or the money each clubs spends on backroom staff too ?

Its just more irrelevant stuff to bulk out the commentary - bit like Phil Clarke's score-o-meter, or whatever it was called.

Stupidest idea that has YET come from Phil Clarke.

"Would it provide extra motivation for the team or is it inevitable that they will lose? Does it add to the game, and do supporters want to know this information?

It's probably only a matter of time before a sport somewhere in the world does this. In this age of the fantasy league, should we go first?"

No. No. No. No.

No.

He was obviously stuck for something to write about this week - and this was the best he could come up with; new depths of inanity have thus been plumbed.

I don't think it's really all that relevant, you're probably only looking at a swing of a around £500k between super league teams, and perhaps £1m between championship ones. Compare this to football where you could be looking at a swing of over £250 million between the top and bottom premier league teams

Yay, let's see how much the presenters earn for the dross they generally serve up.

Now if we could have a system that tells the SKY tators that X% of fans think they're talking e and need to shut up or that X player should have being sent off for X infringement or even how many viewers vote on which coach is being a total baw-bag after the match interview it would be far more interesting.
Phil clarke in trying to make him self relevant shocker. He states the bleedin' obvious the same % as a kettle blowing its whistle to let you know the water is boiling.
should get rid, he's less relevant than O'Connor IMHO and that's going some.

Poor idea. First it wouldn't be too hard to work out what individual players are earning after a few rounds with a bit of number jiggling and I'm sure that would go down well.

Second - does it really tell you how much the team is really suffering? It tells you what the club thought the players were worth at the time of the contract signing but this need not be a particularly accurate indicator of their actual and current worth. That contract may have been signed 2 or 3 years ago and since then a player may have gone to greater things, or conversely lost the plot and become an expensive waste of space.

So a pointless gimmick and less helpful than looking at the numbers on a players back because although there are odd high profile exceptions, most clubs 1-17 are their best players.