Wigan were £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.

I agree which is why I think a finite cap and a 50% revenue cap combined are a good way to go. It limits the amount the “rich clubs” can spend but also incentivises the poorer clubs to increase their revenue. Then when you’re at a more even financial playing field you can increase or even do away with the finite cap.

Good for bringing in high profile players and game awareness.
But where do young talent go becase if SBW played on one leg he would certainly keep out a young Canadian from getting into the team.
Why wasn't it put in there application for joining the rugby league that by year 3, 5, 7 etc there had to be x,y,z Canadians in the team.

Hhhhmmm, there is no RL club in SL or this country other than Toronto can pay millions to a single player & still want to do this more, dream on, onward to mass bankruptcy further down the line. However, if a mass sponsor was to fund the issue I am in favour, certainly there needs to be an increase but a warning needs to be understood, our so called top clubs operate on debt, to increase this to the wishes of one club ? Then so be it !

Before you advocate an increase in the cap, just how many clubs are maxing out the budget in relation to full cap spend plus 2 marque signings ?
The whole idea of the marque player rule is to allow clubs to entice superstars and for their salary not to count heavily against the cap.

So, how many ?

As for a race to the bottom, maybe it's up to the big 4/5 clubs in the comp to lead the way in enticing these elusive superstars.
The reality is that, even without any kind of cap, we would still be left offering over inflated contracts to players in the twilight of their careers.

Increase the spend all you like and nothing will actually change.

The top Australian players wont come over, as they will miss out on representative rugby and the same applies to any up and coming players so, who is it that you want to throw a heap of cash at ?

Correct.

When the 'big' clubs realise that the competition needs to pull-up and even out the playing field, will be the day that they can question the cap. The options as it stands is to scrap the cap entirely, which would result in a runaway league where only a few clubs compete. Have the cap as it is which helps add maybe two or three extra clubs to the mix but is still dominated by a few clubs. Or a third unknown option that allows well financed clubs to be less handicapped but enables 'smaller' clubs to be competitive. SL needs to be attractive to outside money. We wont get that by having a few clubs spending what they want to the detriment of everyone else, producing a boring unbalanced league. The system we currently have is not perfect, but with tweaking and time, is the only real way of keeping a competitive league. That helps secure the sport in the long term.

A competitive league isn't any good if the actual quality on display is average. The Championship in Football is a good example of this. Everyone can beat everyone but the actual quality of football is bang average.

I’m all for a competitive league but not if it means the top teams have to be dragged down to help the rest. Competitiveness should come from the rest making a step up. SL top sides are getting worse rather than the rest getting better and that does nothing to help the sport.