But surely there is no need for clubs to over spend now,a big cheque off sky every year and two and a half years to prove to the rfl that you are worthy of a place in sl will stop this happening now?.

I think that it would be a good idea to have Marquee players, but a £4.5 million cap? I can't see it making the game any better. Allow 2 Marquee Players in each team, and keep the cap at 1.65 million.

I agree mate but this still happens and will continue to do so.

Yes it will , because sport is competitive , maybe somebody should tell the RFL

No salary cap rises can happen in Super League at the moment. Not all the clubs can afford it. If Wigan were allowed an unlimited pot for a marque player they would apply for an exemption that all their existing players were tents in a former life and start spending £15bn a season on players. For the sake of the Wigan fans, it cannot be allowed to happen a second time as there won't be another businessman looking to build his football team a big stadium and needing a tin pot second sport to get it through planning permission.

If anything the cap needs to come down until all clubs are making a profit. Which Super League clubs make a profit? I'll bet Leeds do, but who else is there beyond that?

I like the idea of one of the posters on the link that all the clubs that choose this marquee option have to pay an amount then to all the clubs not spending the cap. It would see more money going into the super league and a lot fairer than just raising the cap

In 2009 up to November 2009 Warrington had a turnover of £5.74m to make a marginal profit, of £27,800, compared with a loss of £348,000 a year earlier.

For 2010 I can't find the figure, but the Chief Executive said it was a second year of profit.

We had a 50% of income rule with a max of 1.6m, we got rid of the 50% rule sp clubs who were bank rolled could compete.

I'd just have a 50% rule.

If it was to be done, and I am against it as it defeats the equality objective of the cap, then that's the way to do it. Clubs that take a marquee player pay a 100% "luxury tax" to the RFL or SL.

salary what?

In a franchised SL, any club which cannot be trusted not to run themselves into the ground shouldnt get a place.

The SC in its current form is disadvantaging the game. We used to bring in the best players from around the world now our best players are playing either in the Aviva premiership or the NRL and our clubs squads are filled with second rate imports.

The SC hasnt risen for ten years, when you factor in inflation that is a huge decrease and we still dont have this mythical even competition, and it doesnt even stop clubs over-spending.

The SC is far too blunt of an instrument to do what we want to do, people seem so terrified of one club winning (they forget that Leeds won three gfs in a row, 4 in 6 years and appeared in 5 gfs in 6 years under the SC) things that as soon as any change in the SC is proposed they revert to type and hide behind stories of clubs going bust (which they have done under a SC) or one club winning things year on year (which has happened under the SC) and forget all the negatives the SC brings to the game.

No clubs should even be allowed to vote for a salary cap increase until they show atleast a £100k profit at the end a the year.
Clubs and fans alike think their club needs to spend upto the cap to be competitive, but the only clubs that can justify spending the cap are those that have won trophies.
What happens when a club has already spent the cap then start winning trophies and players start demanding a wage increase?
Those clubs want a increase in the cap not because they can afford it but because they have backed themselves into a corner.

If you allowed home grown players to remain off the cap, then the smaller clubs would be able to compete, and, more importantly, they would be encouraged to develop their own talent.

in fact doing so and decreasing the salary cap would actively benefit a smaller club and actively disadvantage any club looking to buy success.