If you lose the cap you've got to ban Director's loans. Falling out with folk and immediately asking for their loan to be repaid has caused financial crashes many times in the past.
If a Director puts money in...it has to stay in.

That literally had nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted ????

Well said. I’ve said for 10 years if an owner wants to put money in they should follow the football league protocols. It can’t go in as a loan, it goes in and a donation within the profit and loss account

You want the likes of Castleford and London to hold back the Super League and to continue trying to make it a level playing field?

I don't feel having a salary cap is the problem, it can be raised or changed, rules added like franchise player tags etc to allow better spending on stars.

I feel the Superleague should become a closed league, remove traditional promotion/relegation. SL 1 and SL 2 use the grading system to move teams between if needed. This would allow teams to spend time rebuilding without the fear of being relegated, when even if relegated they will be too good for the level below etc

I don't think either of them are holding Super League back. I just everyone to be able to afford the full cap for a start.

perhaps a first step in the process would be a compulsory full cap spend as a condition of competing in Super League?... I assume its part of the grade A criteria?

The first step should be a salary cap based on a percentage of turnover to stop wasters like Salford, Leigh and Wakefield holding the rest of SL back

What are you expecting to happen for suddenly teams like London, Castleford, Wakefield, Salford etc so be able to start spending up to the full cap?

That by very definition is holding back the sport because there are a number of teams who spend the full cap and could spend more.

You must be joking, how can you enforce a club spends up to the maximum amount?

Think about how that would work in reality? Bizzare statement.

You sound like a poster i used to know on here.

The salary cap as an idea was ok - as long as it was set up with a salary floor (maybe 90%) to keep the clubs at a competitive level. And, it needed to increase. Every year would be too much and too confusing. I would have said it needed to increase in line with every new broad cast deal. So every 3-5years it would have jumped 10-30%. But this needed to have been written into the SL articles so clubs couldn't challenge it. And it needed to have started from the beginning. There's no point now.

You mean the same Wakefield who are not in SL?. Or do you mean Leigh and Salford who are up there playing for a top 6 spot.

Maybe you should look further down the table for teams to have a pop at, instead of your, and your past usernames constant bashing of the 3 above mentioned teams.

Teams doing well, like Salford, without spending the full cap is not a justification for having a small salary cap / cap at all.

Scrapping the cap isn't just about teams like Wigan, St Helens and Warrington spending more and storming ahead of the rest. Its about growing the sport, attracting more players, retaining more players, bringing over better players from Australia.

Quote: RobRiches "The first step should be a salary cap based on a percentage of turnover to stop wasters like Salford, Leigh and Wakefield holding the rest of SL back'" https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/st-helen ... ion-96798/

Quote: RobRiches "The first step should be a salary cap based on a percentage of turnover to stop wasters like Salford, Leigh and Wakefield holding the rest of SL back'" https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/st-helen ... ion-96798/