there is a false dichotomy which often arises with the SC which is that we either raise the cap, or keep it as it is.

People often seem to skip that there isnt necessarily a debate over increasing the cap, there is also a debate over improving the cap.

Id go back to the fundamental problem with the current SC, that is: The same people who are deciding on the cap are the ones with a vested interest in keeping low. That is wrong.

True to some extent, but they still get massively bigger average crowds than SL does - the NRL average for all clubs was 16.5k last year, which is on a par with Wigan's, but way ahead of eveyone else's (SL average was less than 10k).

No, it isnt. I have no problem with clubs running their business's as they see fit. I have no problem with them being involved only in competitions they want to be involved in. I do have a problem with them clubbing together to limit the earning potential of players.

Quote: cadoo "The blame for all this lies firmly with the RFL and the Super League Chairmen who have made some wholly moronic business decisions taking this sport forward. The worst one has to be giving away the Super League sponsorship for free to Stobart to have a few RL players on the backs of lorries. We now don't have a title sponsor at all and is it any wonder? Could you imagine Rugby Union officials making a similar decision? Incidentally Rugby Union signed a four year £20 million deal with Aviva. We gave our name out for free to Stobart. The previous Engage deal was (reportedly) worth £1.2 million a year. How is it that a sport that pulls in better viewing figures than Rugby Union ends up with a £90 million over five years (approx £18 million a year) tv deal and RU are able to negotiate a £152 million tv deal over four years (approx 38 million a year)? It is situations like the ones mentioned that is crippling our sport. We are in a difficult situation. Our salary cap is not going up anytime soon. The wages for a professional RL player deteriorate every year. The fact that in sixteen years we have not kept RL wages in line with inflation is ridiculous. The key decisions our administrators make for our game in the next few years are of the most important in our history IMO. If we continue to make poor business decisions as a game that does not encourage growth in line with other competitions then I cannot see any other result other than us becoming a sub-standard competition that has to revert back to being semi-professional.'" the new superleague tv deal is £23m per year (the rfl released a document, now gone) see posts 12,15 and 16 on this thread forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1699938 as for sponsorship RU just has a different type of market and so can attract larger sponsorship. agree that the stobart deal was a disaster. the new TV deal for RU with bt is only about £18/19m per year for the domestic game. the rest (upto £152m for domestic and European) will come down to what European competition is in place. there is a disagreement going on regarding sky/bt/rfu and other nations

Quote: cadoo "The blame for all this lies firmly with the RFL and the Super League Chairmen who have made some wholly moronic business decisions taking this sport forward. The worst one has to be giving away the Super League sponsorship for free to Stobart to have a few RL players on the backs of lorries. We now don't have a title sponsor at all and is it any wonder? Could you imagine Rugby Union officials making a similar decision? Incidentally Rugby Union signed a four year £20 million deal with Aviva. We gave our name out for free to Stobart. The previous Engage deal was (reportedly) worth £1.2 million a year. How is it that a sport that pulls in better viewing figures than Rugby Union ends up with a £90 million over five years (approx £18 million a year) tv deal and RU are able to negotiate a £152 million tv deal over four years (approx 38 million a year)? It is situations like the ones mentioned that is crippling our sport. We are in a difficult situation. Our salary cap is not going up anytime soon. The wages for a professional RL player deteriorate every year. The fact that in sixteen years we have not kept RL wages in line with inflation is ridiculous. The key decisions our administrators make for our game in the next few years are of the most important in our history IMO. If we continue to make poor business decisions as a game that does not encourage growth in line with other competitions then I cannot see any other result other than us becoming a sub-standard competition that has to revert back to being semi-professional.'" the new superleague tv deal is £23m per year (the rfl released a document, now gone) see posts 12,15 and 16 on this thread forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1699938 as for sponsorship RU just has a different type of market and so can attract larger sponsorship. agree that the stobart deal was a disaster. the new TV deal for RU with bt is only about £18/19m per year for the domestic game. the rest (upto £152m for domestic and European) will come down to what European competition is in place. there is a disagreement going on regarding sky/bt/rfu and other nations

Doesn't matter. Their wage bill is covered completely by the grant they get not by the revenue they generate. I am sure they make use of whatever revenue they generate themselves but if they were watched by an SL average gate they could still pay to their cap.

On the way home from the Wigan-Salford game tonight I put Radio Manc on in the car to hear Koukash take the virtually opposite view to IL. He actually said in plain English he is going to break the cap if it is not going to be raised!

His motivation was basically if you pay peanuts you get donkey's so why would blue chip sponsors want to put money into RL in the UK when all the best players are not here?

This is the exact opposite of IL's view of being OK with the cap as it is and asking why raise it? Koukash can see why it needs to be raised (well from his point of view scrapped).

Seems to me Koukash despite daft bids for players like Sam is the kind of bomb up the backside RL hasn't had since Mo was around. I bet IL isn't happy because without a cash injection from the likes of TV money I doubt he could (or wants) to finance a much bigger wage bill whereas Koukash is plainly willing to do so.

Mind you I don't think Koukash wants to do this for ever. I think he sees raising the cap or scrapping it as a way to attract and keep the top players here so the sport can get increased sponsorship so he doesn't have to keep funding it.

As the Chinese philosopher once said; "May you live in interesting times".

With the failed salary cap effectively keeping players wages down for 15 years. I cannot help but feel for our quality players.

Larger viewing figures mean nothing, it's the value of each individual doing the viewing. I'd guess there's a lot more BMW and Range Rover adverts during union games and a lot more bingo and Iceland adverts for us council estate dwelling northern oiks for league.

But that's how your preferred system works, they club together for their benefit that's what franchising is and a low cap also

No it isnt. If you arent smart enough to work out the difference (having been told it) you are beyond help

I came across these couple of articles from years ago which really shows how much the game has been held back by the salary cap and there are a few comments from Lindsay and Whelan which are still more than relevant today. Also note the contrast with Lenegans commentshttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-63257/Rugby-Union-welcome-Warriors-win-fans.htmlrl

rlhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-62747/Lindsay-calls-end-salary-capping.htmlrl

[iWhelan insisted he needs to rescue the situation rather than allow his club to be reduced to a mediocre outfit.

Dave Whelan, Wigan's owner, fears that league, mainly because of salary cap restrictions, will be unable to stop union clubs, who have no such constraints, plundering the best talent and lowering league standards.

Whelan added

Now get beyond the Wigan to Union nonsense and there are an awful lot of good points. All of the same problems which existed over a decade ago exist now but they are even more so with the additional threat from NRL clubs. Have Lindsay and Whelan also proven to be right with the lowering of standards and exodus of players to Union (and now the NRL)? The lower clubs have, on the whole, made absolutely no progress and the top clubs have been dragged down to their level rather than the other way around.

What I found most interesting though is the figures. The year before the salary cap came in Wigan had spent £3.2m on players' salaries. When the salary cap came in Wigan were given special dispensation for a salary cap of £2.3million, despite other Super League clubs being bound to £1.8m, as they could not get below this amount due to existing player contracts. At this time clubs only received £650,000 a year from Sky, compared to £1.2 million now. So all in all despite every Super League club getting an extra £550,000 a year we now have a salary cap which is actually less in absolute terms than it was when it was first introduced, never mind taking into account inflation, and this is also despite greatly increased attendances and much higher ticket prices.

In 2001 Wigan spent £3.2m on players' salaries which is the equivalent of £4.54m today once you factor in inflation, if you factor in clubs now getting an additional £550,000 a year from Sky and they could be spending £5m+. Even when the cap first came in at £1.8m that would be £2.5m in todays money, again factor in the increase in Sky money and we should be looking at a cap of around £3m. Instead we have a situation where the cap has decreased drastically in real terms and a cap that means we cannot retain our best players, and even average players in some cases. Can you imagine the situation in another decade if the cap remains the same? Do people really expect it to remain the same in the vain hope that the lower teams get their act together, when they have failed to do so for over a decade despite getting an extra £550,000 in TV money and inflation constantly eroding what they have to pay?

[i'It won't happen unless the RFL look at the salary cap situation immediately. There isn't time to wait for a strategic review'.[/i

Uncle Mo had it weighed up 10 years ago!!

If the cap is scrapped where is the money going to come from to allow clubs to spend more?

The only club that would benefit massively from it would be Salford, which is why Koukash is so keen for it to happen.

How would it benefit the game as a whole? How would it stop the best players going to union (of which there still aren't that many)? How would it stop the best players going to the NRL?

It would probably improve a small number of clubs who already have strong sides, plus Salford. Is it going to create a strong Super League? Of course it's not. It's going to increase the gulf between the strong and the weak because those clubs near the bottom can't even afford to spend up to the cap limit as it is and would struggle to be competitive against sides that could spend far more.

Players are moving down under because the NRL is competitive, it's a challenge, it's the best league there is. Preventing a handful of British players from leaving isn't likely to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. The ambitious ones will still leave.

You just can't start spending when you don't have any money to start with. The game needs to generate more money before encouraging people to spend it.

Many clubs seem to be run terribly as businesses and if you take away that limit of what they can spend there is always the risk that they will just push themselves too far - the sport can't afford to lose clubs.

Let a few clubs spend a lot more on players and you'll just drive wages up for the rest of the league as Widnes, Cas or Wakefield end up paying over the odds to keep one of their better players from signing a big money deal to warm the bench at Leeds.

It's not like Super League has received a huge cash injection that will benefit the entire game. That's what happened in the NRL and that's one of the reasons why they are now in such a strong position.

All that has happened here is a rich owner has taken charge of a club and wants to start spending money. It hasn't improved the financial position of the sport or the league as a whole so how can it be used as a basis for scrapping the salary cap?

You can't just start spending money that isn't there. The game needs long term financial sustainability, not a comic strip villain going on a spending spree.

That's not to say that the cap must stay forever, but there are other problems that need to be addressed first, such as turning Super League into a true elite competition.

Reduce the number of teams in Super League, concentrate more of the top players into fewer clubs, then raise the cap for a league that is hopefully more equal and more attractive to top players.

It's no secret that the game needs sponsors and investment, but they need something that's worth investing in. We can't assume that one rich owner splashing the cash will encourage others to follow suit.

Are you saying that Wigan cannot afford to spend more ?

Mr.Lenegan did not say 'we cannot afford to spend more'.

What he actually said was; "Why would 'I' want to spend more ? "

That is the 'language of big business'. Pay the workers less to increase profits.

I'm saying the British game as a whole can't afford to start spending more. This should not be just about Wigan. The salary cap affects all clubs after all - so even if Wigan could spend more, we still seem to be one of very few clubs that could do so.