Simply? The game's too boring to be able to provide those incentives. It needs to be in the spotlight more, then it just might begin to attract the TV deals and sponsorship that could actually deliver what you want to see happen (incidentally, I applaud those aims but the game can't afford the quality of player development needed). Big names = big interest. Celebrity factor I know but you only need to look at the world of entertainment (you know, that sphere we're failing to compete in) to see what stimulates the interest of the crowd.
Personally, the easiest way forward would be to maintain the 2 marquees but remove their entire salaries from the cap. That way the clubs with money to burn could target any player they so wished and - importantly - install them into a squad not weakened by having to cut back elsewhere. And raising the level of interest in the game is the best way to ensure more kids want to play it. IMO, of course.

We should follow the EFL of association football model under the SCMP. Wealthy benefactors are allowed to put money in, that wages can be spent against as a percentage, as long as it is a donation rather than a loan, so it goes on the companies top line and tax is paid on it if the team makes a profit.

Couple of young lads called Senior, oh Matty English, John Luke Kirby plus others all played for a very injury struck Huddersfield team.

So it’s not just Wigan mate...

Wigan were =#FF0000£1.5 Million in the Red for last season IIRC via press reportings. How does this "Big Club" then intend to spend more ?

Edit. They also suffered a fall in average attendance.

Evidence that players now earn less than 15 years ago in real terms please ?

The cost of living has doubled since the salary cap was introduced. Shopping that costs £10 now, cost £5 back then. Has the salary cap doubled in that time? No. It was £1.8m 15 years ago and has only in the past couple of years been increased by £100k. You can argue about the marquee rule or home trained dispensation but that wont affect the other 20 odd players in the first team squad.

So yes, players these days earn way way more in real terms than 15 years ago

The salary cap was only a couple of hundred thousand lower in 2001. Obviously inflation has eaten into wages since then so in real terms players do earn less now than then.

However I don’t have much of a problem with that. I’d love to pay our players 2,3,4 times what they’re getting now but the finances of the game don’t support it. So in general I’m in favour of suppressing player wages but only so that that money can be spent on Club infrastructure, commercial, marketing, community etc etc so that clubs grow. Then as clubs grow they can steadily pay players more and more. Which is why I’d introduce a 50% of revenue rule for the cap.

We need a sustainable, yet more importantly, competitive league from top to bottom. The salary cap has helped certain clubs stay effective as compared to before the cap was in place. This is a good thing for the sport, but ultimately it has to be judged on results, and the fact that the same old clubs win the GF every year means that something's not working. Fair play to them of course, and a handful of clubs are starting to knock on the door in Warrington, Cas, Hull, and even Salford. Scrapping the cap or increasing it is probably not the best thing for the sport in the northern hemisphere as it would only benefit a handful of clubs. The rest would fade into obscurity. While some would say, so be it, as a product SL with only a handful of competitive clubs is not an attractive proposition for fans, investors, or indeed marquee players of the future. Whether people like it or not, dragging-up the teams that are struggling to compete, and shortening the gap between the top of the championship and SL has to keep happening for the sport to get to the point where money rolls in, and players actually want to play in SL. That's when the cap increases need to be discussed. What we need now is maybe a rethink of how it works to not handicap clubs with an excess of cash, but help clubs with less money remain competitive.

Yes they should be given some time but then how long must pass before they make a start? This massive salary could have been used to start it.

I still go for a 50% rise in increments of 10% over the next 5 years *inc 2020 season* , this would potentially give players inflation busting pay rises for 5 years & help bridge the gap, of course being a cap for an entire team means some would & some wouldn't benefit based on perceived value to the club involved.

Personally I have suffered from a government set pay freeze over 5 years while MP's awarded themselves 12% pay rises & that on 1/5 or less of top SL players & at least 1/3 of many so it is hard to feel sorry for someone on £1.5K - £4K per week.

Does this mean I don't think players should be paid more, no,.more that to allow it to be sustainable & for clubs to prepare their finances & adapt, the increases should be stepped, maybe a few SL & Championship Clubs would struggle to adapt & keep pace even then.

This is the same Brian Noble who was part of the furniture at Bradford, a once-great club who folded from the top flight due to financial issues - even with a salary cap. The mind boggles.

I agree, it would be great if we can start to throw the money around to attract these superstars and compete with the NRL - but our clubs just arent financially able to do this sustainably, which means we'd be at the whim of billionaires who will inevitably get bored when they dont get an instant title / win (ala Koukash). Removing the salary cap is a problem; not because it will be an uneven playing field for the 'poorer clubs' such as Salford, Wakey, etc but it will be a problem in that it will lead to clubs over-extending themselves and collapsing. The game cant afford another Bradford Bulls level disappearance from the top flight.

Right now it's just a race to the bottom.