by trying to keep the entire super league artificially competitive, we are dragging the entire standards down to level of the lowest teams. We are finding it difficult to attract young players to even play the game in the first place as the career prospects are poor and financially un-rewarding. The simple fact is there is not enough money in the game in the UK for all clubs to make the game a viable proposition. with the ever increasing salary cap in the NRL it is more likely that those young exceptional players we do unearth in the game will be lured away by the financial rewards and lifestyle, even those who want to stay at home have the lure of the rewards of moving to Union. Unfortunately there is no easy solution as we are a minority sport in the UK, should we allow clubs who have the aspiration and finance to compete on equal terms with the NRL or Union or do we hold them back???

Do we want to be the NRL feeder league ???????

We aren't losing/not attracting young players to the game because of the wages of SL players. A 12 year old has no idea how much SL players are paid. They play the game because they enjoy it.

The reason we don't attract or lose so many young players is because:
- we only reach out and give the opportunity to play RL to a tiny proportion of these young people,
- too many don't enjoy playing RL, for a few reasons at different ages.

If we change these things then we'll see an increase in young players playing the game.

Is this not for another thread really? I think the point of the thread was about how we retain the talent we do have and hault the drain to the NRL, rather than how to increase the pool. You're both right by the way, and it is an issue, albeit a separate one.

If you took that 1million pound per club salary difference and invested it in getting more kids playing rl and better jnr structures you would find we would be much closer to,the nrl in ten years!

Perhaps if we had a salary cap for non playing staff in RL clubs including CEO's that might see the salary cap rise. At Leeds you see non rugby staff growing whilst the people who make it all happen have effectively taken an annual pay cut. The salary cap hasn't moved for 15 years. The CEO's especially the likes of Hetherington don't want the salary cap to rise - he actually would like it set at what the weakest club can afford. I doubt he would be voting for it if his own salary was controlled the same way!!

Ps the exchange rate shifting back in the pounds favour will see the player drain reduce and swing back to sl's favour.

It will reduce the drain from SL (its only been a few players in reality)
I can not see any top NRL players moving to England though.
There never really has been many since the seasons aligned, plenty of fringe Kiwis that have made a career in England and become stars.

As you say it has been a very long time since top nrl players joined SL clubs due to them not being able to play across both comps. I think this year has already shown the impact of the exchange rate with some decent players coming over.

The Aus attitude of if you go to SL you lose the right to selection for SOO and International caps is also a factor they don't travel, thankfully Kiwis don't have that hanging over their head.

except the best of those kids will be playing in the NRL or RU

Here's yet another radical idea.

Coach and train youngsters in good facilities with the incentive of the the opportunity to rise through the ranks, develop their skills at all level and earn a great deal of money as their career develops.

Or just throw money at a pension seeking, holidaying , past it , pension seeking, mercenary whose "loyalty" to the club and fans is based solely on the $ or £ they can screw out of idiots.

Recent history shows which choice will be made.

Its not even mercenary types. If a club was able to spend an extra million, the very first thing that wouild happen is that all the current squad members would be into the office asking for a raise. They'd also seek more by way of transfers to other clubs. Its fantasy land - and to be frank a bit unfair on existing players - to think that anything else would happen. The net effect of that rise would be good for existing players, but have virtually no impact on the sport - you'd just be paying more for the same product.

That's why cap increases (inflation aside) need to be targeted rather than across the board. Some clubs would manage the process well - they'd sign a star and maybe lose a couple of p*ssed off players - but a cast iron certainty is that too many clubs would make a complete pig's ear of it.

wow......you found David Hughes business plan for London broncos RL......it's genius isn't it!

firstly, i dont agree that if we had more to spend on the cap, we wouldnt bring in more better players and be able to keep hold of more of the ones we have. I think its self-evident that that would be the case.

Secondly, dont the players deserve some of that money? We have apparently seen a 60+% rise in clubs distribution, why dont those who are out there putting their bodies on the line for the tv companies deserve some if not all of that money?

Thirdly, it isn the players job to subsidise poor management. We have decided now that clubs can rise and fall on their own merit. If those clubs make a pigs ear of it that club should suffer the consequences. Its morally wrong to be limiting the amount of money a player can sell his RL skills for so that money can be used to cover for the clusterfsks some chairmen will make of running the club. To paraphrase Ivan Drago " if they die, they die". Thats the brave new world we live in.