From the BBC:

"Senior figures at Premiership Rugby are confident that plans to change the salary cap will be agreed this week.

The new initiatives include the allowance of a second marquee player from overseas - whose wages will fall outside the salary cap.

The cap is also likely to rise above the current £5m limit, with more money available for fielding academy players.

It is hoped the changes will keep English qualified players playing in England up to the 2019 Rugby World Cup.

Premiership Rugby say that an increase in revenue through TV and sponsorship has meant the clubs can afford to invest more in their playing squads."

......And likely to bring in a 2nd marquee player. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/29204455 Not a union topic, I just want to illustrate the fact that other sports are moving forward, while the people who run our game continue the levelling down of the league.

......And likely to bring in a 2nd marquee player. m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/29204455 Not a union topic, I just want to illustrate the fact that other sports are moving forward, while the people who run our game continue the levelling down of the league.

The gap between the two is only going to get bigger in the coming years. Our main downfall (of which there are many) IMO is our lack of an international game.

We need a fixed and fuller international calendar, which is backed in full by our major governing bodies. 3 or 4 games every Autumn just isn't enough. Atleast they've finally made sure the WC is every 4 years.


Slightly on topic - Leeds city centre is awash with Union WC2015 marketing. Banners hanging from lamp posts around the station; a huge 10mx4m poster on the side of a building near the station; the main screen in the Trinity shopping centre. Then there's two billboards I pass on my way home. Obviously they have a much bigger marketing budget, but targeting one of the busiest city centres in the country seems pretty simple stuff in an area RL seems to struggle.

It's only bad news because we've designed a system which bans rich people from attracting superstar players.

Which is absolute NOT the same as the perfectly sensible policy of preventing teams from totally dominating everything.

All we need do is allow clubs to spend whatever the **** they like, provided that NO MORE than (say) 13 players are on more than £80k (say) and no more than an additional 17 are on more than £40k (say)

That way, Richie Megarich can come into RL with the ambition to build a dream team, but he can't stuff the bench and squad with players who should be in others' first teams. Likewise, without a good development squad, he or she will struggle (because how often will all 13 be fit?)

There are not enough strong international teams to do more than a four nations ( or equivalent ) round of fixtures each year outside of World Cup years. However, though not as good, the expanded World Club Championship will at least see some 'exotic' teams playing over here each February.

The RUWC also highlights another big problem that RL has though - it's audience.

Go on any RU forum now and you'll see threads full of people talking about how many tickets they have applied for in the ballot. Many of these posts talk about tickets worth thousands of pounds. Two fans I work with have applied for £1100 and £1300 of tickets each (although they're bricking it that they'll get all of the one's they've applied for!)

Flash back 11 months on here, and the hot topic of discussion was which 50% discount codes were still working and how people were only interested if they could get in for a fiver.

The RFL and, in particluar the clubs, have to look at how they can attract a better calibure of customer - one that is willing to pay the going rate for the game, rather than one that is constantly demanding discounts and freebies for the game they apparently love. When we have that, we'll attract sponsors and revenue that will allow us to pay our players competitively.

There's a lack of money in the game. But I wonder if that's more to do with the game under pricing itself rather than look at charging a going rate?

Last week at Bradford's season ticket launch the chairman, Marc Green, put out a figure of just under £2.8 million for the club to break even over a year. So, for the game to be profitable, we need clubs at Super League level to be bringing in over £3 million a year. Which means clubs need to be getting 10k crowds on top of Sky/sponsorship monies. Really the buck has to start with the RFL as they have a duty of care to ensure clubs and the sport not only survives but can thrive. Reviews of clubs income streams and marketing would be a good first step. Show clubs how they can improve, don't just leave it to up to them to coast along.

I was reading in 'The Times' about the sort of money that the clubs will be forking out here, and given that, even with the money coming to them from the RFU, the owners are still going to be forking out loadsamoney to keep their teams competitive, medium to long term, methinks there's big trainwreck coming.

I disagree that this is an RFL issue, it is a club issue. They are the ones who know their businesses and their local audiences better than anyone, so why is it down to the RFL to hold their hand?

There is too much reliance on central funding at the moment, which is making clubs lazy when it comes to developing their own businesses, revenue streams and supporter bases. Personally, I would like to see a significant proportion of central funding made 'performance related'. If you start withholding central funding until clubs submit and implement a marketing strategy, show commitment to their junior development strategy and demonstrate that they can grow crowds and revenue, they'd soon get off their backsides and make it happen.

Wigan demonstrated last week that you can increase your crowds without mass discounting - all it takes is a little bit of creativity and a bit of determination to put on something that people want to pay full price for. Too few clubs have that mentality.

Don't believe in setting limits on what players can earn.
Intead of limiting money being invested allow them to bring in 2 marqee players, fine, they must also have eight "Club Trained" players in their matchday 17.
That way we get a balance of bringing stars into the game and clubs whilst ensuring an equal balance is kept by producing your own quality players in sufficient numbers.

Not being picky, but how many Union threads on the same topic do we actually need? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=574529

Not being picky, but how many Union threads on the same topic do we actually need? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=574529

Who was the last superstar player that was attracted to Super League in his prime, Matt King?

I can only imagine that figure is for the Championship and not SL, as I'd have thought £2.8/3m a very low figure for break even in SL. IIRC London were bringing in around that figure and still needing around £1m from David Hughes.

Obviously the figure will be different for different clubs but £3m sounds very low to me, I'd have thought to run a decent club on full salary cap you'd want roughly double that.

I thought pretty much all Union clubs here lost money as it was. Could be wrong granted but I really didn't think the league was strong enough to raise it currently. As is mentioned above, could be a big fall-out from this down the line.

And before anyone asks, I'm not a union hater. Grew up playing the game and have no problem watching/playing it to this day.

Many can afford to lose money. Please keep up you rugby league know nothings,