Maybe it's because UK players are more loyal to their clubs, and not as mercenary as the Aussies who seem to just chase the money.

My knowledge of the NRL's minimal. Are the cellar dwellers loaded? If so, any player joining up might reasonably expect others of quality to join him. Were Wakey to sign, say, Hardaker, he'd know with certainty they couldn't afford any other top players; in fact the quality of those around him would almost certainly drop as a consequence of his having signed and the cutbacks that that would require.

Salary cap is working, not Leeds Wigan saints fault they produce the best players and attract the best players, Leeds success down to exceptional run club not just spending the most money, bet there are 3-4 clubs trophy less and out off top 4 who spend more money than Leeds.

I think part of the difference is that in the NRL you know there's gonna be turnover in the teams challenging for the play offs. Cronulla went from the wooden spoon in 2014 to finishing 6th in 2015. If players are aware this sort of transformation is possible, the good players are more likely to join bad teams, because there's nothing to indicate they will always be bad teams.

If Michael Ennis was a Super League player, he would have done the equivalent of leaving Wigan at the end of 2014 to join Wakefield. No player over here would do that because what chance did Wakefield have of making the play offs in 2015?

I also think the cap seems a lot harsher over there. I know their cap is much bigger, but so are wages - you hear about clubs having to let go of players because of salary cap pressures a lot more often. Robbie Farah being forced out of Wests, Michael Jennings and Luke Lewis being let go from Penrith, Glenn Stewart and Keiran Foran with Manly. These are all pretty good players who the club would rather have kept, but couldn't justify it under the salary cap. How often do the good Super League clubs have to let some of their good players go just because of the salary cap?

You could scrap the cap but then you would have to implement a rule meaning that clubs were protected from chairpersons who like to gamble.

Saying they are financially astute does not prove anything clubs as independent businesses pose no financial risk to the individual running them, they will just borrow against club assets until the club goes bust.

This is the first year for a while there has been some stability in club finances.

It's like the shampoo. It won't happen overnight but it will happen. (Provided it is properly policed)

Players do leave top clubs to go else where and earn more money. Thornley and Harrison Hansen at Wigan, Aiton at Leeds and going back a few years Calderwood. Josh Jones, Puletua and Flanagan at Saints.

I think job security at the smaller clubs with a history of going bust, and that prize money doesn't count on the cap make players moving to smaller clubs less common.

But what is special about a sports club that distinguishes it from any other business?

Businesses in all walks of life take risks, some work and the business grows, some don't and the business shrinks - that's the whole point of raising capital and having management in place.

It strikes me that the only logical way forward from having an imposed salary cap is to have a single model of finances right across the board for all clubs - yes let's nationalise SuperLeague - come on Mr Corbyn here's a project for you

Simple business are there to make money.
Sports clubs are there to win prizes.

Do tescos care if they get team of the year. Nope. But they do care about making money.

Do sports clubs care about making money. Not so much but they do care about having the best staff and being team of the year.

In football they have so many teams they can afford for 5 or 6 to go bust as others replace them. When Bradford goes bust there was no one to replace them, same with London losing money year on year.

Then you have the lunacy of clubs going bust but fans insisting on them staying in the top.flight.

The basics for rl are we.need more players, more clubs and more fans to pay more money to allow a totally free market.

At the moment it struggles with a semi regulated market.

Sports teams are essentially not for profit. Being well run enables them to spend more money on salaries and stadia if they can, but I'll guarantee there isn't a single owner in SL who expects to do any better than break even. For a number of the owners a manageable loss wouldn't be that bad as it would be used to offset tax liabilities elsewhere - it could even be their aim.

Just a side point from me...

Prestige of Club seems to count heavily towards a bias of young lads veering towards the top four Clubs. While the likes of Leeds and Wigan produce decent youngsters, these youngsters are often from outside of those Clubs local 'influence'. The prestige of these Clubs attracts youngsters. Those that make it are then shown to be products of that Club, and rightly so. Things are made a lot easier for top four Clubs when most young lads are chomping at the bit to play for them. This isn't the fault of those Clubs merely a by product of success, but it shows how uneven it is for lower league teams to attract and retain young lads when faced with the carrot that is a top four team.

Lower teams still face a battle to retain lads that have gone through their system due to the same reason. Looking at my own side Salford, as an example, we've lost the likes of Sneyd, Turner, Fages, Ratchford, Myler (With a nod to Widnes) just in the last few seasons. We'll face a tough battle if Evalds continues on the path he's going to, and a few of the new crop of young lads coming through like Lannon are going to be tough to hold onto. It's nobodies fault that these players want to move on for the chance to win things but it shows how difficult, even after retaining a young lad, it is for lower Clubs to build around homegrown talent.

SL really needs a few other Clubs to win the GF. As the superiority of the top four diminishes, even slightly, it will slowly change the dynamics of youth development and retention and strengthen the competition as a whole. Like others have said though, it's a catch 22 scenario in that there just isn't a catalyst that can get the ball rolling.

Maybe there should be regional academies brought in with a draft pick system to even things out or maybe clubs should be allocated areas where they can sign players from. This would stop the likes of Wigan signing players from Yorkshire and Leeds signing players from the other side of the Pennines. each club could also be allocated a development area where they can sign players from. So Wigan could get the south west and Saints the south east.

If clubs pass on players then they are free to the open market.

I await to be shot down by Leeds/Wigan/Saints fans.

Good post, Butcher. Dunno how accurate the RFL's assessment of the academies is, but there are still clubs apparently not operating at the level they perhaps should be (not a dig at any club as I can't recall whose are deemed satisfactory). that too may be a factor that determines how attractive they are to youngsters. But I accept the premise that the possibility of success is probably the greatest determinant of all.

It's also not just how the academy operates, it's how the club as a whole operates.

It's why I'm very much against a binning of the salary cap because I think, unless clubs drastically increase their income then less needs spending on players wages and more on club infrastructure.

Sort the clubs out off the pitch and they'll succeed on it.

why is that responsibility on the players? why isnt the onus on the fans to pay more or the owners to invest in their businesses?