The cap was brought in to stop clubs over spending beyond their means, level up the talent across the league and provide a more even competition. Added to this the closed shop, licencing aproach and the RFL were hoping for 14 teams battling out every week.

However, clubs, no matter how publicly adamant they may be that they don't, most do break the rules. It is also open to many loopholes such as back weighted contracts, signing on fees and agents fees.

We see with the top clubs, these rarely change and only freak results sometimes breaks the chain. Wigan, Warrington, Leeds and Saints are all going to be top clubs whether through top quality Aussies or bringing in/training up the best of British. Huddersfield, Hull FC and Catalan are seemingly on the fringe of this however with the Catalan, Al Jazeera contract and wealth of the whole of French talent available to them they will IMO soon become one of the top teams for years to come. Obviously clubs with greater financial troubles such as Hull KR, Wakefield, Salford, Bradford...etc are all capable of beating those other mentioned clubs and finishing above them on occasions but when looking at both on and off field success, you'd probably group those clubs in with each other.

I think the game has moved on from success mad owners, borrowing beyond their means to try and win trophies. They struggle enough to just compete and spend up to the full cap now, so if there was no cap they'd still probably spend under it.

With no cap in place, top clubs that have the finances to do so, should be allowed to offer players what they think they are worth. Top class players such as Ashton, Eastmond and Farrell may not be showing off their skills in RU shirts if they could have been offered similar deals by the top clubs in League. As long as the RFL can be provided with proof that the club can afford the player on that salary plus bonuses, I do not think a ceiling amount is needed.

Likewise though, if the RFL see the need to keep a higher amount in place, then a minimum should also be set. We can't keep seeing clubs that spend £1.65m putting 70 points on a team that is unable to spend above £1m. If a salary cap is needed for the reasons I stated on opening this post, then a minimum must be adhered to also. Again it must be proven that the club is able to spend up to that amount but if not then surely they should not have a place among the elite?

I know Hull KR have admitted to spending to the full cap this season and have not had value for money so are looking to spend significantly less on the players over the coming years and look to producing good quality local lads. So this probably does show that you can spend £1.65m on players, but you won't always get that amount back in the quality on the park, but if every week your players were playing against other clubs that were bound by say a minimum £1.3m base cap, the possibility is that they'll all perform to their true value.

For me though, scrap the salary cap and just introduce a financial regulatory board who must approve a clubs spending. If the clubs argument is not strong enough that they can afford a player over the course of his contract then no deal can be signed off. There'll always be brown envelopes and 'jobs for the wives' type of things going on but this happens anyway and the cap clearly does not work for the reasons they were introduced.

The gap between the top and bottom is already too big, if the cap was to be scraped then that gap would just get bigger and lesser clubs would struggle to compete. it wouldnt go back to the wigan winning everything days because there are more clubs with spending power but not enough for a remotely competitive league.

I see no problem with back weighted contracts in anyway, you cant have everybody on them because at some point too many people will be earning too much and they will break the cap, its the more 'dodgy' methods I have a problem with (wives in the club shop, players registered to other businesses, off shore accounts etc).

Also Andy Farrell was coming to the end of his RL career when he left for union and Chris Ashton was very average in League. Kyle Eastmond could have been the next Gary Schofield had he stayed.

Until RL increases its profile country wide, especially down south and we sellout the CCF and playoff games with people paying decent money in the process not cheap/free tickets, we will always struggle unless of course each club has a rich backer in which case the cap could rise like Wire (i dont think they have a cap anyway), Leeds, Hull, Wigan etc.

I agree with the opening post.

The Salary Cap should just be scrapped with immediate effect.

I would not, however, put anything complicated in its place. It all has to be administered and Clubs get round it anyway as nick hkr says.

What is needed at the same time as scrapping the Salary Cap are a few high level rules:-

1. All clubs to submit audited accounts made up to 31 December each year to the RFL by the following 30 June. Failure to do this = 6 points deduction
2. One-up, one-down automatic promotion and relegation between the leagues
3. Go into Administration = 6 points deduction
4. Go bust and transfer club to a new company = relegation to the bottom division

Put that in place and then just leave the clubs to it.

I agre with the opening post.

Scrap the salary cap and move to a 4 team SL. Wigan Leeds, Warrinton and Hull.

All other teams to be relegated to the championship.

.

Let the aforementioned clubs spend whatever they want ( jamie peacock would be happy). We will have a competitive league which will certainly improve the quality of the national team. Wigan and Wire would not spend any of that money on foreigners to compete with the Australian cap.

Any good players who become stars would also stay in RL as they could never be poached by RU depsite their £6 salary cap and all the RFU's money.

We would then be able to pick the national team on the 80 players who are regularly playing RL at the top level.

Jobs a good un

Alternatively the RFL could spend £100K on a proper accountant with investigative powers to make sure the salary cap was not fiddled and dvelop some balls to deal with those who flout the system.

What about immediate relegation for anyone found breakling the cap and all records expunged of any team found to have broke the cap retrospectively.

For the love of god do we have to go over the same ridiculous arguments over and over again?

The salary cap has to stay or there will NEVER be a winner other than Wigan, Warrington, Hull (under current owner) or Leeds.
I'd love to know how back weighted contracts, signing on fees and agent fees are salary cap loopholes.
You can't go saying that the salary cap hasn't altered the top clubs and then quote Leeds, Wigan, Wire and Saints as the top clubs. Since the Big 4 used to include Bradford and Leeds hadn't bloody won anything. So it really was a Big 3. Also Wigan dropped out of it for a few years, Bradford are out of it now and Wire have only just come into it.

To suggest Leeds & Wigan etc could just suddenly sh|t the money needed to pay the wages the likes of Tomkins & Eastmond etc are getting in Union with no salary cap is just bizarre.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=537498&tsmp=1348593543 Not recent enough?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=537498&tsmp=1348593543 Not recent enough?

I think that statement is wrong.

The same poster might say that there is no Salary Cap in Soccer and that there 'will NEVER be a winner other than' Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea.

I would still think he would be wrong to say that.

Either way, I'd say So What?

Can't speak for DG but no, of course not.

You think super league would be improved by having around 4 teams outspend the others to oblivion?

The salary cap needs to be lowered if anything, and enforced better. You'd get less blowouts.

Terrible blow out on Sunday - Man City 1 Arsenal 1 - after Man City spent 10 times more on salaries and bought all Arsenal's best players.

What sport was that?

I dont think the salary cap should be scrapped but it certainly should be ammended. There should be incentives for clubs to increase revenue streams, such as if they make a profit they can spend more on the cap, and it should be increased to keep players in the game. Clubs should also only be able to spend a % of their revenue to try and stop them spending money that they havent got.

At the very least the salary cap should have risen each year in line with inflation since it was introduced, instead of falling in real terms year on year, and this should happen every year going forward. Having a salary cap roughly where it is now was fine when it was first introduced but even if it hadnt risen by any more than inflation it would be well over £2 million today in real terms which shows just how much players earnings have fallen in real terms. This would obviously be much better for all clubs trying to retain and attract new players. It is a joke that players in the 90's were earning more than players are today, I cant think of any other sport that has gone backwards like this. If people are concerned about some clubs signing all the best players then put limits in place as to how many players at a club can earn over a set amount. Limping along with a salary cap permanently at £1.6 million isnt helping Rugby League, isnt helping to retain our best players and it isnt even creating an equal competition. People permanently seem to complain about the big 4 but tying their arms behind their backs isnt helping the game and I dont see how, for example, letting St Helens spend another £200k a year on 3 of their best players so that they stay in Rugby League or Super League, providing they can afford it of course, creates a more uneven competition. These players would play for Saints anyway and if there are limits on player numbers earning over a certain amount no one club can hog all the stars and maybe Saints would have kept the Kyle Eastmonds of this world.

Raise the salary cap to £1.8 million immediately, for clubs that make a profit let them spend £2 million. Also on top of this have a star player allowance of 200k split between a maximum of 3 players. This would not create a less even competition than what we have now and would, if anything, help make the competition stronger by keeping our best players and would aid the national team by helping to keep our bright prospects in RL.

A sport that doesn't have a Salary Cap and is the biggest sport in this country - and the in world.

Respect where you're coming from - but do you think any governing body - let alone those at the top in RL at the moment - could effectively administer that?

No, if you try to run a sport like the Soviet Economy in the 1970's, it will end in tears.

The clubs need to be left to get on with it without restriction before it's too late (subject to the rules proposed in my earlier post on this thread).

The big four may well be more than that next year.

Wigan,
Warrington,
St Helens,
Catalans,
Leeds,
Hull FC

They all will be competitive next season and on their day capable of beating each other. This is a massive improvement on three or four years ago when Leeds and Saints were far ahead of the rest.
It's hard to see where the rest will be competitive wise with those six.

Maybe:-

Hull KR
Wakefield,
Huddersfield
Bradford
Castleford
Salford
Widnes
London

With their squads it's hard to see the bottom three ending up anywhere else.
Whether it is the salary cap or the fact that so many of our SL clubs are dependent on wealthy benefactors who put limits on how much they will spend on their club determines the success.