No England V Exiles in 2014?

I've not read all the posts but I think the cap needs to be removed for homegrown players.
So homegrown players don't count on the salary cap.

I don't think raising the cap is an answer at all. If anything, I would lower it.

At the moment, the game is in a state of financial peril. London, Wakefield, Bradford. How long can Cas and Hull KR survive? Saints, Warrington and Salford are all bank-rolled to a certain extent.

Deleting the salary cap or raising it, would only lead to greater inequality between teams and a less interesting competition.

The American approach to sport is spot on. Part of their popularity is their competitiveness.

So, unless we want to drop down to an 8 team league the salary cap has to stay as it is in my opinion.

Besides, who exactly is this player drain? Sam Burgess is in the NRL with a huge salary cap and a lifestyle some could only dream of. So are we talking Kyle Eastmond and Joel Tomkins?

The bigger problem, to me, is that players cannot test themselves on the largest stage, and no Salary Cap adjustments will fix that.

Re NRL and salaries. The aussie dollar was so strong for the last 3 years but now it's declining. So paying Sam Burgess AU$300,000p.a. was around £198,000, but today would be around £165,000. So the brit players came over earning a fair crust with it not being a huge amount to NRL clubs.

When Sam Burgess came in, to be under the salary cap, he went on a sliding salary, like Inglis. ie. His money went up year on year. In his time there the salary cap has also increased. So who knows what he's on now.


GF, agree on Melbourne. But to be fair, the league was part owned by the TV people who wanted a team there and owned the side. As for transparency they rorted the salary cap to no end for years and no-one was really punished with not one of Murdoch's employees being done for it. Watch Melbourne over the next 3 seasons without all of Rupert's money and more importantly as they slip down the table.

they only count as a maximum of £100k now. So at Saints for example Roby and Lomax's new contracts only count as £100k each, but probably alot more!

That's from 2015 not next year

You're paying lomax 100k ?

And people ask why we DON'T scrap the salary cap?

The American model simply won't work anywhere else in the world, whatever the success. American sports clubs don't have academies, they don't produce youngsters. The colleges do. Once the kids finish college then the drafting system starts.

Over here players come through club run academies. From a clubs point of view what would be the point in investing time and money into youth development if when the players are becoming ready for 1st team they get drafted to other clubs.

We are potentially on the verge of a very exciting time for RL. We had an amazing World Cup, we have a chairman who is wiling to chuck massive money into a club and says he can attract others to do the same yet the biggest headline is England's biggest superstar is probably off to kick and clap.

Scrap the salary cap entirely and replace it with a requirement to break even over a 3 year period. If a club doesn't it looses it's franchise and is thrown out of the league. I don't care how the club breaks even whether it is through raising revenue streams or owner donations. At the same time raise the number of home grown players that must be in a teams squad and introduce a minimum number for a match day team. For example a club must name 10 players who have come through its own youth development system in their squad and at least 3 in every matchday 17. That way you can buy all the superstars you want but you still have to produce a few as well.

The solution to the player drain is the same as the solution to all RLs problems, planning plain and simple, whats the saying " Failure to plan, ** ******** ** fail "

This applies both to clubs and the sports administration, Licencing SHOULD have allowed the sport and its clubs to grow, but it was badly planned from the start with the Celtic fiasco, compounded since with clubs failure to run themselves fincially

We now have a new structure that SHOULD give virtually all clubs something to play for well into their respective seasons providing all clubs plan for all eventualities

Similarily the new TV deal SHOULD allow all clubs to operate financially prudent budgets to enable them to concentrare on building their own revenue streams and primarilly their fan bases providing again that all clubs plan for all eventualities

Providing the clubs do what they SHOULD, then the RFL SHOULD be able to concentrate on general management of the sport ( but not micromanaging any existing clubs) but more specifically the International aspect and future expansion, providing they formulate realistic and workable plans for both

There really are no more excuses

The only solution is to grow the game - there is no quick fix.

That entails, inter alia:

1. Increasing player supply, which involves massively increasing the numbers regularly participating at grass-roots level, especially kids.

2. Get the game played at all levels, especially Super League level in larger towns / cities over a more widespread area of the country.

3. Greatly increasing spectator numbers watching the professional game.

4. More, meaningful international matches.

It'll be an uphill battle based on lack of success historically, especially as the RFU apparently has a policy of picking of the games legends and players at any time the game looks like growing via TV exposure.

It all comes back to money and planning. Two things the game never seem to have had.

I don't think we really have a problem with players leaving, If the RU fill the England side with our players it can only reflect well on our game as we are obviously doing something the RU & its clubs can't. What IMO is the real problem is the uncertainty that all clubs suffer from as they can't plan in the longer term as no matter what they do some bright spark will come along & move the goal posts. What ever we decide we should stick to it for at least 10 years or more. We have to ensure clubs can be certain that investing in the ground & youth won't be a burden if suddenly they loose all their best youngsters to another club because someone decides it is time to scrap the cap. I follow a mid table club who have made a good go of super league our ground is vastly improved, & we are starting to produce young players that could be our future, but we are struggling to keep them we have lost two good lads to bigger clubs ( & you can not blame them chasing trophy's its not money) take away the cap & what is the point of spending on youth only to loose them to big money clubs? I suppose the only way would be to tie them into long contracts but would any agent let their client do it? or would many clubs risk it?e

Its called ' life ' , I started up a business 20 years ago, employed schooleavers as it was a relatively new industry and needed new skills unavailable from a job centre, many of those people left and now work at companies that have now put me out of business

Why should any lower tier clubs run juniors? , why should amatuer clubs bother?

You do the best you can do, but as your club is doing you also look to build the off pitch, the bottom line is if you build then eventually you will be strong enough to retain or even entice the best from the clubs who are currently higher up the ladder than you

I agree I have worked in aviation for over 45 years were training costs are exorbitant to the point were no one unless they have guaranteed long term contracts will invest in training. They are chasing an ever decreasing pool of skilled people (OK for us with the skills as pay keeps going up) but it is not good for the industry. The same goes for our game In aviation we bond people who are given training my last bond was £18,000 if I leave I have to pay it back or as is more likely the company I move to has to pick up the cost, Maybe clubs could try bonding young players then if the big club comes along they at least get the money back if not the time invested. If the club releases that player no bond to pay back. We just have to create a stable long term system that encourages & rewards investment.

Problems / solutions:

1. Too many teams in Superleague and not enough quality players to staff them. Would rather have less teams and higher quality, more intense, matches with a proper international schedule.

This reflects on viewer interest - who wants to pay £20 to watch London Broncos play Widnes on a Saturday night when they could be down the pub getting bolloxed.

2. Lack of a credible international scene means NRL or Union are the only 2 places to go once you have maxed-out on what you can achieve in Superleague.

3. Union pays more.

4. Union has a higher profile. The NRL has a higher profile.

5. Superleague has struggled to expand beyond the M62 corridor, with the only successful expansion club being Les Cats. See point 4.

6. League is largely played in small, unfashionable, northern towns, populated by working-class individuals with limited incomes. This then reflects on the amount of money sponsors and investors are willing to put into the game. Not much we can do about this.