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.

The player pool in Australia is huge. Not everyone plays rep football. There are plenty of quality players who are not quite good enough for Origin but are still very very good players.

Even if we was to include those who are good enough to play rep football at the end of the day money does matter.

I know that there are 100's of potential players over there but, we were talking about big name players on huge salaries and the question that I asked you was, how many clubs are currently using their full cap and 2 marque signings because, unless there is pressure from more than Toronto to increase their wage bill, we are just hypothesising on stuff and nonsense.

I havent seen Leeds, Wigan or Wire demanding any type of increase and quite frankly, if they are "happy" with the cap + extras, we should keep as we are, plus some annual inflation type increase.

The min point is that the "superstars" of the Aussie game will only come over for a retirement contract or when they have mis-behaved and cant get a gig at home.

There seems little point about wanting a Cooper Cronk or Tuivasa-Sheck type player to come over as it just wont happen.

The Premier league is so far ahead of the championship because of the vast wealth inequality between the leagues. In fact, even the premier league is skewed heavily in favour of the clubs with unlimited cash. They also have the problem that only about a quarter of the teams in that league have a chance at winning the title. That's not as big a problem for them because it boosts all the clubs in the league financially. Most of the teams have no hope of competing but they have other enticements such as European football and domestic competitions. Plus they are the countries number one sport.

The trouble with certain fans with your argument is that it's elitist nonsense and a catch-22 for you. Your teams already sit at the top end of the competition, but when top clubs such as Leeds or Wigan to name a couple over recent years have struggled. It's that the competition is degrading in standards somehow. When teams that have traditionally struggled pull themselves up to be competitive and challenge the 'top' clubs, instead of seeing that as a positive thing it's somehow because the general quality is now rubbish or we can't spend more when we can.

For SL to survive and move forward the league needs to be competitive. Nobody will invest into a sport with only four or five teams battering everyone else every week. That's why we're still struggling even now. These things take time. I'd rather watch a SL that throws together more competitive matches over watching a few clubs play champagne rugby over inferior opposition. While what we have now isn't perfect, the 'lower' teams are dragging themselves up and becoming more competitive. Not every match can be a SOO banger because these things take time. The marquee signings are a perfect solution, as it stands, to attract that bit of talent that's floating around.

That's not my argument. In a truly competitive competition like you see in the NRL there would be ebb and flow where one year a team could finish 12th and the next year finish 3rd.

Seeing the 'big clubs' be successful or struggle isn't the barometer of whether the competition is a quality product. I am simply judging the product on what I see on the pitch and to me the standards have declined.

Now of course the solution to that isn't simply about better quality from Australia as the game needs to produce a better homegrown quality of player but it would help.

A few years ago I would of said the top 4 or 5 in Superleague could match the top 4 or 5 in the NRL and it was further down the league where the huge gap in quality was but now I dont think that's the case.

The gap has become much much bigger between the two competitions top to bottom. Now of course it doesn't help that over here there that we dont have the same level of player trading. Our top players play for the big clubs and stay at the big clubs due to too many clubs not in a position or are not prepared to spend up to cap.

If we have a competition where far too many clubs cant even spend up to to the salary cap that do we have that begs the question how can the standards ever improve.

Simply raising or binning the cap wont sort the discrepancies you highlight. It will just lead to a two-tier competition that will drive half your fans away from the game. The NRL has a lot of advantages over SL. National sport, investment, better media coverage, huge investment into grass roots, a massive player pool, and a sensible cap to name a few. We can't compete with that. The rise of the NRL has taken time and a lot of changes since they were second-class to the UK.

For SL to improve all over the park, it needs time and careful management along with investment and growth. SL needs to be competitive regardless of how you view the standard. The overall competitiveness of all teams with each other will then improve the standard. The standard can't improve unless that imbalance is addressed. How do we balance that? With the cap.

I'd accept that the league is more competitive than it once was though I wouldn't say it's looking increasingly secure.