turnover isn't irrelevant to affordability. And if Koukash is willing to pay whatever to a player, it is a nonsense to say he can't because another owner can't. If my employer told me he was going to pay me less because another business couldn't afford to pay their employees that much he wouldn't even finish the sentence before I was gone.


None of that is players cross to bear. If Cas need a new stadium they pay for it. Not Jordan tansey

I may be wrong but haven't Leeds carnegie uni built that stand for the rhinos? Which included classrooms and a base for the uni to work from?

The Aviva Premiership salary cap is quite impressive. I like the student fees not being included and they have the One exempt player rule too.....which will hit us. The amount of money is not quite the same issue as they have bigger squads of players so spread the money differently to us. The main difference though is the central funding money. Their salary cap is bigger because they have more central funding. I'm sure the income through the turnstyle isn't that different but without RU millions, and increased salary cap will not make a dent in the RU plans www.premiershiprugby.com/premier ... ry_cap.php

The Aviva Premiership salary cap is quite impressive. I like the student fees not being included and they have the One exempt player rule too.....which will hit us. The amount of money is not quite the same issue as they have bigger squads of players so spread the money differently to us. The main difference though is the central funding money. Their salary cap is bigger because they have more central funding. I'm sure the income through the turnstyle isn't that different but without RU millions, and increased salary cap will not make a dent in the RU plans www.premiershiprugby.com/premier ... ry_cap.php

PopTart has nailed it on re Rugby Union: we cannot compare finances. They have such central funding lnked to sizeable investment in the sport from every international.
I am minded to compare RU amateur clubs to RL amateur clubs: note the background of the people behind the clubs: there is a resource there we cannot beat.

Also re. the good doctor: he is used on here as someone who will continue to pay and pay. I'm not sure of this. Our matchday funding streams are poor: the stadium company's contract blocks much income to the club. He is a businessman and unless he gets more from ticket and programme sales, he may pull out.
Our hope is that he follows the City model. The investment City have put into producing their own is huge: check the new developments at their ground. He has stated a greater priority to develop youth.
But, do not assume he will continue to pay out for a player unless we get results and so boost ticket sales. We're not. The start of every season for Salford fans is like Bernie in the Golden Shot: we're blindfolded but hoping for a result.

[urlhttp://www.espn.co.uk/premiership-2013-14/rugby/story/221695.html[/url

even with the ' financial clout ' , central support the hefty TV deals most of the Rah Rah premiership are heavily indebted to their owners .


According the story Bath were shelling out 8.8M in players wages for the 12/13 season.

Yeah but everyone on here wants the perfect business plan obviously it will never ever happen if they want the game to thrive, if people don't believe the owners of the top clubs in super league plus Salford can afford a bigger or even no cap they are either being ignorent or they don't want the game to move forward.

The owners of the big clubs could spend more money buy they don't have to as they are doing just fine, that's all well and good on a personal level but it's stagnating ans killing the game.

It was built in partnership with Leeds Met they put up roughly half the funding as did Leeds. But they also get, along with the facility, the naming rights for several years.

Really? What makes you think they can afford significantly more? Leeds made the biggest profit of any club in recent years a couple of years ago. It was, IIRC, £600k. It was way above normal but even going by that figure then presumably the most that clubs can currently spend extra is £600k.

The only other option is you think Leeds are ignoring some blatantly obvious form of additional income or are wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on unnecessary areas of spending.
Which is it?

What makes you think they can spend significantly more money?
If they could why don't they?
If Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, Huddersfield, Saints etc all have this money spare they're not using why don't they spend it on any number of areas that could improve either the club or first team performance?

As for the "stagnating" & "killing the game" comments I assume you're referring to players moving to Union or the NRL.
The NRL salary cap is roughly double the SL cap (taking into account the exchange rate). Now assuming money is the only factor in a players decision to go to the NRL, which it obviously isn't, SL clubs spending would need to double to match the NRL.
For Union, SL clubs would need to at least triple spending.

So, where are Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Huddersfield going to find an additional £2-4m per year, every year. And even in the miraculous event they do what happens to the clubs that can't afford anything extra when they're £2-4m behind in spending.
Even in your scenario, we end up with a 6 team league.

So as I've said before looms like league will stay small fry forever and we all should get used to it.

There is a pretty simple solution that doesn't involve colluding to exploit players.

If you cant spend significantly more, don't spend significantly more.

Leeds specifically would also have the option of not paying the RU club hundreds of thousands in management fees, they would have the option of not having £2m sitting in the bank, they would have the option of calling in the £2m the RU club owe them, they would have the option of Caddick putting more money in, they would have the option of building their business. All options for not exploiting players whilst also not going in to debt.