But the whole point of the franchise system was to aid those "smaller/middle" tier clubs into developing stadia, crowds etc etc to enable them to spend the whole cap.

Widnes must not be far off being able to spend the whole cap, they were making a pretty sizeable profit whilst in the championship, let alone super league.

Salford are getting a new stadium, increased revenue's (and hopefully crowds) should enable them to spend more on the cap.

Wakefield/Castleford should have new stadiums already, they don't, so they can't afford to spend to the cap.

The number of clubs spending to the cap will only increase (in my view), but aside from that, the way to improve a competition isn't to drag down those at the top, but to help teams further down improve and challenge further up. The fact that the salary cap hasn't risen in however long is definately that of the former, top clubs are able to spend less (in equivalent terms) than they were and that is dragging down the level of competition.

Off the top of my head, I'd imagine Wigan, Wire, Saints, Hull FC, Leeds will definately be spending to the cap. Hudds, KR, Catalan and Bradford can't be far off.

If Sam had gone then England RL would be weaker, he hasn't and so they aren't. So you'll be happy then?

Don't understand the posters moaning Wigan are cheating. It's the same rules for all the other clubs. To keep it a level playing field, teams like Quins, Salford & Wakey need to up their game, not expect Saints Leeds & Wigan to come down to their level.

Personally i think each team should be allowed at least one player completely exempt from the cap. this would stop the player drain. Glad Tomkins is staying, couldn't giv e amonkey's about his brother, he's bog standard and if Saracens want to throw silly money at him, let them.

absolutely........i don't care if he plays here or in the NRL as long as he's still playing RL

this player exempt has to be english though.......we can't be having warrington signing thurston

Go on then, what were those *specific* reasons? People seem to think they know what they are, but I've never seen those reasons listed ( they might be for all I know, I've just never seen them )

FWIW the reasons behind salary and squad control (and I put them together because they're not seperate issues) *should* be:

Prevent a club from spending more that *it* can afford.
Prevent a club from having too many top players in the squad but outside the first XIII (it cheats the game's fans to have the top players in clubs reserves, rather than in others' first XIII )
Prevent a club from having too many overseas players
Encourage a club to have a strong academy

This is a genuine question, in that I don't know the answer, but was 'Equalize competition' ever listed by the RFL as a specific goal? In my opinion its a stupid goal because it impossible to acheive without screwing the game. I'd welcome the RFL listing the specific reasons ( and would hope that 'equalize' wouldn't be one of them ), because once you've specifically defined what you're trying to acheive you have a better chance of designing a system to do it.

One of the problems with the salary cap, at least as fans are concerned, is that people have widely different views about what the cap is supposed to be for. People bang on about the cap without explaining *what* they want it to actually do. The cap isn't some sacred cow, its just an instrument of control, one of many possible ways to control the finances of the game to the game's advantage. I'd rather argue about what specifically we're trying to acheive first - the rest is implementation details.

Too b****y right. It's way past time the other clubs stopped being nannied. Bring back relegation too. We've encouraged mediocrity on and off the pitch for too long.

A salary cap is the best way to address the second goal (spending beyond means), but the first goal is better acheived with a more structured type of squad control ( kind of like the 20/20 rule ). For me, I'd be even more aggressive on the number of players, but looser on the salary, more like 13/100 or something. That kind of system *forces* you to bring good players through because you've got max 13 stars...but, *if you can afford it* you can at least get the top stars to bring in the sponsors, media interest, etc. 13 superstars is enough to put a lot of bums on a lot a seats but not enough to totally dominate.

Will the Wigan fans agree that it would be wrong if they announce any further signings for next season?

You get the cap raised to sign Tomkins to a big contract, so should in theory have no cap room available now. And yet the papers are full of rumours about an NRL player signing soon and another two players from Crusaders.

not if "marquee contracts" are'nt included in the salary cap

Exactly. So it would mean they don't actually need the exemption to keep Tomkins, they need it to sign whoever else they do sign.

On the information we've got now, the whole thing stinks. The other clubs have already built their squads to the rules in hand. Wigan don't feel they should apply to them so apply for them to be changed. If the other clubs weren't consulted in advance it's terrible. If this has been planned and discussed and the other clubs are happy with it, then fine, but it seems strange that it's not been discussed publicly by any of the clubs.

No, not really.

Say Sam has been given Joels contract on top of his (reasonable assumption for arguments sake)

That still leaves Deacon, Hoffman and Coley out with Lauaki, Dudson and Flower possibly in.

I'd wager those 3 incoming barely total Hoffmans wages.

And Saddened, on a side note....

If these rule changes had been announced 2 weeks ago by the RFL, with no mention of Sam Tomkins anywhere in sight, with a clear and concise procoss of what the changes were and how they would affect clubs, would you not be happy that at long last the cap is not only:

a) no longer limited to a figure which was set in place a number of years ago, meaning that in relative terms RL players are earning less now than they did.

b) clubs are now rewarded for producing and developing Home Grown players who then turn out and play for England.

c) give clubs a viable way or warding off interest from RU

For a start Saints would be one of those teams that would benefit the most from this, especially as you are victim to one of your young "stars" taking the money and running.

This is the RFL and their shoddy PR enabling some opposition fans to claim Wigan are bending the cap or making the rules up themselves, when in fact the new changes should benefit any club that develops their own players and wants to keep them. Don't let your anti-Wigan bias hide the fact that these changes (if they are as they sound) have been a long time in coming and were sorely needed.

But you haven't signed them yet, so why did you need an exemption from the salary cap in the first place? The rumours about an NRL centre being announced after the 4N have reached the papers today I believe, so that would blow ins and outs out of the water and would make the increasing the cap look farcical.

As ever with the RFL they have handled this horribly. Why not announce the new rules properly before the Tomkins deal, or even with it? Today makes it look like they've given Wigan carte blanche to ignore the salary cap for another 4 years. Was there even a plan in place? Or has this just a hatchet job to keep Wigan happy and the actual rules that result from this will be shoehorned in as suits over the next few weeks? Lots of unanswered questions here.