For me, the cap needs to be raised,( by how much, I'm not sure). We need to be able to keep our top quality players, and also attract more quality players from the NRL. It's important that we can get as much quality on show as possible to put more bums on seats. If anything, this would allow other teams, apart from Wigan & Saints, to catch up to their level, and seriously challenge for honours.

If you want more quality on show "scrap the cap".To get more NRL you would have to raise the cap to match theirs, in real terms would be practically getting rid of the cap.
Ultimately it is upto the clubs owners/backers to manage the finances of said club.

TBH - I don't think they're going to scrap the cap, but increasing it significantly would give us some kind of measure to where it should be, and give us a guide to see if it needed tweaking any further.

I’ve mixed feelings about it.

We’re certainly asking the cap to fix too many problems. Competitive balance, financial stability, even propping up the academy system. And scrapping it would at least spare us the nonsense about ‘great culture’ and it all being about ‘developing your own players’.

However, moving from the outcome of the season being drearily predictable to a higher proportion of games being non-contests would still be a big step. If Wigan are winning by 40, 50, 60 nearly every week, only ever challenged by Saints you’d think the best players might eventually want to go elsewhere (i.e. the NRL) for a challenge.

Ultimately I suspect it’d have to lead to greater change. Possibly fewer, bigger teams - and we all know how popular the idea of mergers is. But I feel like we’re already on the edge of what is tolerable for predictability.

To scrap the cap would also have to unrestrict overseas quota. both are self defeating policies. you want people to watch the game then offer them the best product.
More people watching is increased revenues and increase in kids wanting to play. Grass roots will not grow if the pinnicale of the sport is not attractive

Lol what?

If Huddersfield were successful, they may get 5000 fans. If Hull are , stick 10k on that figure and Leigh have been a breath of fresh air, winning The Challenge Cup. I think your club's current plight is testament to the fact that you can spend hugely on players, but that is not going to win you trophies, until your club culture and coaching can match the ambition,

I

I see I'm a bit late to this conversation, but scrapping the cap WILL increase the gaps between Teams. There are some that can't even afford the full cap.

I was told that Featherstone were top spenders last season in the Championship but could only spent about £1m in salaries which is ridiculous.

The NFL is a perfect example of the salary cap working. All of those Teams can afford the $255m cap spend, but they still have to make the right decisions about players and coaches. Wigan have just made the best decisions so far, with Warrington, Hull KR, Saints, even Hull FC and probably some others still having the financial means to compete. They just haven't made better decisions on personnel compared to Wigan.

There are already 3 major dispensations for clubs to be able to spend over the £2.1m cap.

On a personal note, as a Wire fan, I'd love to win the Grand Final, but purely on merit. It would be great to spend above and beyond the cap to bring in world class talent and even take away the best from teams lower down the table. But if we won the GF, people would say that we bought the league, and I don't want that. If we do actually win the GF, I don't want anyone to be able to question it. Same for any other Team that can break the 4-club cycle.

We need all clubs in the English system to actually be able to spend £2.1m first. It's on them to make the right decisions, and then we increase it over time. But that only happens when the Sport grows, which I'm still waiting on IMG to sort out.

If you lose the cap you've got to ban Director's loans. Falling out with folk and immediately asking for their loan to be repaid has caused financial crashes many times in the past.
If a Director puts money in...it has to stay in.

That literally had nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted ????

Well said. I’ve said for 10 years if an owner wants to put money in they should follow the football league protocols. It can’t go in as a loan, it goes in and a donation within the profit and loss account

You want the likes of Castleford and London to hold back the Super League and to continue trying to make it a level playing field?

I don't feel having a salary cap is the problem, it can be raised or changed, rules added like franchise player tags etc to allow better spending on stars.

I feel the Superleague should become a closed league, remove traditional promotion/relegation. SL 1 and SL 2 use the grading system to move teams between if needed. This would allow teams to spend time rebuilding without the fear of being relegated, when even if relegated they will be too good for the level below etc

I don't think either of them are holding Super League back. I just everyone to be able to afford the full cap for a start.

perhaps a first step in the process would be a compulsory full cap spend as a condition of competing in Super League?... I assume its part of the grade A criteria?

The first step should be a salary cap based on a percentage of turnover to stop wasters like Salford, Leigh and Wakefield holding the rest of SL back

What are you expecting to happen for suddenly teams like London, Castleford, Wakefield, Salford etc so be able to start spending up to the full cap?

That by very definition is holding back the sport because there are a number of teams who spend the full cap and could spend more.

You must be joking, how can you enforce a club spends up to the maximum amount?

Think about how that would work in reality? Bizzare statement.

You sound like a poster i used to know on here.

The salary cap as an idea was ok - as long as it was set up with a salary floor (maybe 90%) to keep the clubs at a competitive level. And, it needed to increase. Every year would be too much and too confusing. I would have said it needed to increase in line with every new broad cast deal. So every 3-5years it would have jumped 10-30%. But this needed to have been written into the SL articles so clubs couldn't challenge it. And it needed to have started from the beginning. There's no point now.

You mean the same Wakefield who are not in SL?. Or do you mean Leigh and Salford who are up there playing for a top 6 spot.

Maybe you should look further down the table for teams to have a pop at, instead of your, and your past usernames constant bashing of the 3 above mentioned teams.

Teams doing well, like Salford, without spending the full cap is not a justification for having a small salary cap / cap at all.

Scrapping the cap isn't just about teams like Wigan, St Helens and Warrington spending more and storming ahead of the rest. Its about growing the sport, attracting more players, retaining more players, bringing over better players from Australia.

Quote ="RobRiches"The first step should be a salary cap based on a percentage of turnover to stop wasters like Salford, Leigh and Wakefield holding the rest of SL back'" https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/st-helen ... ion-96798/

Quote ="RobRiches"The first step should be a salary cap based on a percentage of turnover to stop wasters like Salford, Leigh and Wakefield holding the rest of SL back'" https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/st-helen ... ion-96798/

I dont think his latest account leans towards Saints, shame really.

So Saints living beyond their means and blaming everyone else for losing £1mill +