www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... anges.html I'm not suggesting we go to the current £4m cap that they have, but I think we should look at the compromise that they are bringing in; one marquee player exempt outside the cap and incentives for academy players in the first team squad. Pretty sure both of these themes have been suggested in rugby league circles, but the slower code on the pitch has been quicker to implement them off the pitch. Coming from a fan whose team does not spend to the £1.65m limit it may seem crazy, but there has to be a way that satisfies the Warringtons of this world and allow academies to prosper. Does the current cap save the clubs from themselves, possibly, but I do think that it may be worth looking at especially with union squads at £4.5m for all pro's at the club, NRL rising to $7m AUSD and SL stuck at £1.65m for the top 25.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... anges.html I'm not suggesting we go to the current £4m cap that they have, but I think we should look at the compromise that they are bringing in; one marquee player exempt outside the cap and incentives for academy players in the first team squad. Pretty sure both of these themes have been suggested in rugby league circles, but the slower code on the pitch has been quicker to implement them off the pitch. Coming from a fan whose team does not spend to the £1.65m limit it may seem crazy, but there has to be a way that satisfies the Warringtons of this world and allow academies to prosper. Does the current cap save the clubs from themselves, possibly, but I do think that it may be worth looking at especially with union squads at £4.5m for all pro's at the club, NRL rising to $7m AUSD and SL stuck at £1.65m for the top 25.

I can understand the bigger clubs frustrations at the current cap level but if we decide to raise the cap IMO a lot of clubs would go under.

Why would SL clubs go under when they've no need to over spend?.

An aim though for the future, more of a roadmap for the future when SL has three newly-built grounds and a big-name title sponsor. The current cap may save clubs from themselves, but a seemingly lesser game seems to get more money in.

There are few Moran's around that could bankroll a rise in the cap and think little of it, and my club would be cut even further adrift. However there does come a time when you have to look forward and have targets that are positive rather than preventative.

I'm sure Salford and Castleford will be joining the likes of St Helens, Wigan, Warrington and the like in the call for an increase in the cap, or at least an augmentation of the rules to benefit the top and bottom. Hopefully SL will see rugby league take off as a proper spectator sport in London and Wales, because the argument for the cap remaining as it is will be limited to just those two SL clubs over the next few years unless they move forwards.

Any salary cap exemptions would only benefit the rich clubs with sugar daddies. The smaller clubs would not be able to spend more, they still wouldn't be able to keep their best players on higher wages and longer contracts.

It wouldn't make one jot of difference except allowing the likes of Leeds, Wire and Wigan the ability to spend double, have bigger squads. It would make SL boring, repetitive and from a personal point of view I'd lose all interest.

Because clubs in the past have been known to go bust whilst overspending.

But surely there is no need for clubs to over spend now,a big cheque off sky every year and two and a half years to prove to the rfl that you are worthy of a place in sl will stop this happening now?.

I think that it would be a good idea to have Marquee players, but a £4.5 million cap? I can't see it making the game any better. Allow 2 Marquee Players in each team, and keep the cap at 1.65 million.

I agree mate but this still happens and will continue to do so.

Yes it will , because sport is competitive , maybe somebody should tell the RFL

No salary cap rises can happen in Super League at the moment. Not all the clubs can afford it. If Wigan were allowed an unlimited pot for a marque player they would apply for an exemption that all their existing players were tents in a former life and start spending £15bn a season on players. For the sake of the Wigan fans, it cannot be allowed to happen a second time as there won't be another businessman looking to build his football team a big stadium and needing a tin pot second sport to get it through planning permission.

If anything the cap needs to come down until all clubs are making a profit. Which Super League clubs make a profit? I'll bet Leeds do, but who else is there beyond that?

I like the idea of one of the posters on the link that all the clubs that choose this marquee option have to pay an amount then to all the clubs not spending the cap. It would see more money going into the super league and a lot fairer than just raising the cap

In 2009 up to November 2009 Warrington had a turnover of £5.74m to make a marginal profit, of £27,800, compared with a loss of £348,000 a year earlier.

For 2010 I can't find the figure, but the Chief Executive said it was a second year of profit.

We had a 50% of income rule with a max of 1.6m, we got rid of the 50% rule sp clubs who were bank rolled could compete.

I'd just have a 50% rule.

If it was to be done, and I am against it as it defeats the equality objective of the cap, then that's the way to do it. Clubs that take a marquee player pay a 100% "luxury tax" to the RFL or SL.