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?

There is no responsibility on the players. There is responsibility on the clubs as to how much they pay players.

There is nothing stopping owners investing in their businesses. They can invest it in sorely needed areas such as management, marketing, commercial, sports science and training and playing facilities.

They all desperately need financial input. If we don't do that our clubs will never reach a point were they can actually pay their players more.

We currently have Wakefield who at one point this year were only spending roughly a third of the salary cap.
Inflating wages does not help the sport. We cannot compete with Union or the NRL on wages without doubling what we pay our players. Something the richest club in our competition can't afford never mind the rest of the clubs.

Sort our clubs out off the pitch first, then we can raise wages as club incomes rise. You can't do it the other way around without destabilising clubs.

But with regard to growing the game, owners of clubs such as Northampton RU or Bath RU are very unlikely to start an RL venture as part of their club unless they know they will be allowed to spend enough on players to ensure success in League 1, then in the Championship and then in Super League. So, the salary cap has to be scrapped and be replaced by a control based on a club's audited available financial resources; a term that would exclude loans, directors' or otherwise. I.e. Genuinely put money in that you in effect write off without a legal right to get it back, and you can then spend it all on players if you wish.

The way most clubs are run the term "audited available financial resources" would in practice mean that the salary cap value of your players cannot be more than you receive each season in central funding.

But, if any club can show that it has the money to pay players more then it can.

All the game has to show to the outside world (inc HMRC) is that we have a rule that basically says don't pay your players (which are always the biggest expense anyway) more than you can afford.

I'd prefer us to rely on the responsibility of club directors to live within their means and have no controls at all on spending on players. But it reflects badly on the sport (in terms of getting future grants etc) if our clubs keep going bust (even if we do impose a sanction of relegation if it happens).

whatever semantic gymnastics you wish to indulge in wont alter the fact you expect the players to accept less in the hope clubs spend more elsewhere. You expect that the earnings of the players should be the opportunity cost of investment in other areas of the business.

If clubs need financial input that comes from selling their product or it comes from owner investment, it shouldnt come from setting up a cartel to lower employees wages.

Not being able to compete with Union or the NRL or anything else is irrelevant.

There are many many many players who will leave our game with not a lot of money, at a disadvantage to the rest of the workforce in terms of skills and experience, whose bodies are shattered and broken by our game and who will struggle for the rest of their lives. That Wakefield might want pay managers more, or spend more on the club shop is pretty irrelevant to that.

If fans and owners want to see something, they pay for it. Players have no responsibility to earn less so fans and owners dont have to pay as much.