Well no I don't know that it nearly killed our sport. Why so?

Smaller clubs not being able to manage their business is not the same as top clubs killing the game because they have too much.

I think Koukash has a point here. I dont think it would be a bad move to say clubs are allowed two players whose wages do not count on the cap, it would allow the top clubs to have a fighting chance to keep their best players from going to union/NRL eg Tomkins with Wigan. Maybe say they must be eligble for a home nations team as well.

Smokeys not taken his medication again.

As someone who is going to enjoy the watching the very finest that the sport can produce and knowing that you side with the RFL in all of the topics argued on here,what would your thoughts be if Dr Koukash bought the major players from the Australian side (should they win the World Cup,of course,and backroom staff,and house them at the SCS at Barton,all for the benefit of Salford City Reds ? )
I believe he has the finance to do that.
Like myself,he may be unimpressed with the standard of Super League at the moment and the Academy system has failed - hence the scrapping of the Under 20's - and it seems he is not prepared to wait for success.
Where does that leave the RFL as they had a review following the dismal England performance in the 2008 World Cup
and decided the Under 20's was the way ahead and the way to catch-up to the southern hemisphere sides ?

Why not make exceptions for England Elite players, and English players brought from Union.

catch 22 is the salary cap!

raise it- you will get clubs with money buying up all the top players

keep it as it is or lower it and risk losing quality players to NRL or union

maybe a smaller increase of another £250k may help keep some of ourt top players in our game

Firstly, i dont agree with everything the RFL does. I do agree with some of it, and i know some of it isnt down to them. I will go on to disagree with them twice below.
Secondly, i agree, for some clubs the academy and youth development system isnt working.

Thirdly, I think we need some form of talent distribution, and some form of restriction on clubs buying all the talent. Saying that if all teams were playing by the rules and Salford were able to bring over some top quality players I would be in favour of it. I think it would be a very good thing for them and as such for the game. I think that the biggest names in our sport are what helps us sell it.

the problem with rugby league and football is that players have contracts to the club only.
in rugby union and cricket the best players have contracts to club and country.

now which of the four sports do best on the international front?

Then again, have you seen some of the crowds at county cricket? And it is a struggle to take seriously rounds of the RU premiership that clash with internationals, especially their World Cup.

It isn't good that the cap hasn't been raised in so long, and it is becoming a problem. Not just for losing the likes of Sam tomkins, but also somebody like Bryn Hargreaves. It is a short career, with little security, that doesn't by itself leave you all that well prepared for much else afterwards.
On the other hand, most of the clubs still run at a loss and we've had 3 clubs go under in recent years, and others looking near the brink at times. Koukash talks about a level playing field with the NRL, but without their revenue, having their cap would be daft.
A rise to maybe £1.8 million is possibly due. Or a couple of players off cap. Much more than that and you'd have to be looking at 12 or even 10 teams, which focuses resources, but diminishes us in several ways.

Because people stopped going.

And this is not about clubs managing their businesses. That aspect of the cap vanished when they removed the percentage of turnover rule. Any club is now free to spend it's way into oblivion if it so chooses.

There are not enough top quality players to go around. Raising the cap to allow the handful of rich clubs to buy up all these players will not improve the quality of SL or RL in general. You already have club chairmen complaining about player wage inflation - how much do you think wages would rise if it became a free-for-all.

In any case there is virtually zero chance of this happening as it would require a majority of SL chairmen to vote for it.

A thought that occurred to me last night...

What if a club were able to add £1 to it's SC for every £1 of Sky money it was willing to forgo? This would allow the rich clubs to increase their cap and buy better players while providing a larger pool of money to be distributed to the other clubs, somewhat offsetting the negative effects. It would also have the effect of increasing the net amount of money in the game.

There's probably any number of problems with that idea that I haven't thought of, mind.

Evidence or gtfo.

rlHere.rl

Smokey, you're the stopped clock of RLFANS. Mostly wrong, but right twice a day.