From what I garnered from Wilky's meeting at the church, we (they/he/the overdraft) spent £450,000 over the usual budget on player salaries for the 2011 season, probably taking us to the cap. Bloody frightening I know.



Even if it's a 'gift' in all but name it still has to be accounted for as BF says. Otherwise you're knocking on the gates of bung city.



If it's like other voting decisions, a small majority is required. 8 would do it. But I also imagine the RFL could veto it.

I don't agree with raising the salary cap en bloc. One of the reasons it was introduced was to save clubs from themselves — their recklessness with keeping up with the Joneses, or rather the Whelans and Caisleys. I think you're more likely to see dispensations. Let's say allowing clubs to have up to three players with limitless earning potential. However, those clubs would need to jump through hoops to prove how they would finance the deals. And they mustn't be reliant on factors that could jeopardise the future of the club.

I have misgivings about the cap as a concept. Previously it never really concerned us so I've never voiced them but:

1: Doesn't the very idea of saying to an employee that there is an upper limit on what you can earn go against all ideas of freedom of labour? If the employer is willing to pay whatever, then is it even lawful for a third party (the RFL) to say that the employee cannot receive it?

2: It's all very well saying that the cap is there to "save the clubs from themselves" but in what other businesses would this be considered acceptable? If all the supermarkets got together to agree amongst themselves exactly how much they would pay, then I'm sure the Office of Fair Trading would be crying foul pretty quickly.

3: Having an artificial construct like the salary cap in place just encourages dishonesty and "creative accounting" - surely an open, honest approach with disclosure of employee costs through the normal accounting procedures is preferable?

4: Having a cap just encourages other, richer sports to poach RL talent and discourages moves in the opposite direction.

I suppose so but I guess it would take someone to challenge the system through some legal channel, potentially making themselves very unpopular in the process. You have think why in the NFL, a sport awash with corporate money, many aspects and artifices are still managed centrally by the ruling body



Probably. In the inter-war years, rugby league clubs took advantage of football's maximum wage and signing-on fee restrictions. Gus Risman might not have signed for Salford if it weren't for the fact we could offer him the most money (more than Tottenham Hotspur could anyway). Current journos are expecting Sam Tomkins to sign for an NRL or union club for similar reasons. I remember the RFL having some 'scheme' to keep talent such as Kieron Cunningham in the game, but I don't know the particulars about it.

Think the easy solution is as the Doc has said to allow each club a player (or more) off cap with their wages and then for say the club in question to have the funds too pay the players salary for each season of the contract into a fund held by the RFL to prevent the clubs over stretching.

You'd think there is a scope for clubs to source a big sponsor for these players thus not making an impact on there own finances.

Yes,that would be ideal,one player outside the cap.
Isn't that what happened to keep Tomkins from Union?
I think it works like that in MLS,which is how Beckham was financed.
All the other stuff about Caps being anti this ,that or the other,is irrelevant. We have a cap and we must adhere to the same rules as the others

Would that be using the well known Warrington clause?

I've viewed this from every angle and yes to a certain degree the cap does keep the game a little bit more financially safer but nothing will make it completely financially safe just look at Bradford Bulls. but on the other hand European Rugby League is now being left behind by Football,(Championship) Rugby Union, and even cricket. not to mention the NRL.
Now the RFL have to think properly here if they really want (MANCHESTER) to embrace Rugby League they need a top MANCHESTER team playing within its elite league, Salford propping up the table year in year out isnt going to entice people from either Salford or Manchester, Dr Koukash knows this and it's the reason he's applying for Salford to be given special dispensation for a couple of years to grow the game in the MANCHESTER area. Because let's face it Salford as a city isn't in the best shape at the moment and can't be used solely as the pool of people we need to get to games, manchester, Trafford, stretford and even Cheshire need to be targeted, these people are so used to sporting success within their areas such as Man Utd, Man City, Lancashire Cricket, Sale Sharks and even back in the days of Mancheter Storm ice hockey and Manchester Giants basketball all have edured championship success in their recent history and have all at some point had top draw crowds, now for Salford to do this we to have to be challenging and winning trophies too. To attract the bandwagon supporters which every top club ha, we need to be worth following and Koukash is putting over to the RFL a similar situation Melbourne storm have in Australia, a sporting club who are in a hotbed of rival sports the only way they compete is to be given an increased salary cap limit compared to other Rugby hotbeds like Sydney it seems to be working for them so I think the RFL should give Salford a chance to shine now it ACTUALLY has the ammunition to do so. It's over to the RFL to make the decision.

Excellent post. If RL wants a significant presence in Manchester, in London then provided somebody is prepared to foot the financial bill these club need to be given the freedom to make a significant impact.

Wire's financial stability has been applauded by the RFL as a sound business model - but it's backed up by decent crowds and the revenues from those crowds find their way to the players .... as it should. Relying on Sugar-Daddy handouts on the other hand, always ends in failure.

It's quite hard to miss a bright orange Lambo parked at certain SL games ..... but it aint a Wire one!

I would be astonished if this request was even put to vote, let alone clubs agreeing to it. Clubs will always vote based on self interest and things such as this or putting the game as a whole or the International team first won't happen.
Personally I think it would be a bad direction to go in because any big improvement or future success would be attributed to the special allowance and very few people would give Salford any credit. As I said yesterday there are ways around this cap such as providing a far superior working environment and providing the best coaching/backroom setup.

As other people have suggested a compromise or solution could be to allow clubs to have one or two highly marketable players excluded from the 1.65m salary cap. For instance what could a Sonny Bill Williams do for raising the profile of Superleague?

By raising the cap I think I would change our game to be almost football agent status with so called lesser players wanting more money.