Well they do this in RU, but they have a massive pool of players to choose from in England. In league, we really would be cutting off our noses to spite our face.

And even if we did, would lack of eligibility for England stop players wanting to go to the NRL? With the relative importance of the international game in league, I don't think so.

There's no point in just causing wage inflation by upping the cap (although it should be indexed anyway). This needs a bit of smarts to work out a way to genuinely increase pay whilst also increasing the talent pool. In the end the only way I can see it happening is for more exemptions, and home-grown is the best long-term exemption, as it should reward players who develop kids. I have no time at all for clubs who can't pay up to the cap and in addition spend nothing on junior development.

I cant take Koucash seriously demanding an increase in the cap, maybe he should have spent some of his money on keeping the academy setup at Salford.

Unfortunately, this post - while eminently reasonable to you - proves the point about the tail trying to wag the dog.

The problem for the game as a whole is not that rich clubs aren't allowed to win everything by spending lots of money that no one else has, but that our leading stars are now never more than one season off leaving us for pastures new, and quite often that means leaving RL altogether.

You may not consider that a problem given that your team is currently doing well. And you're quite right to say that Cas are showing how good team-management is paying dividends on a relatively small budget, but look at it from another angle - why should the likes of Wigan keep the conveyor belt of junior talent running, at considerable cost to the club (one reason we don't win bidding wars for big names anymore) if we never get more than a season or so out of the finished products?

It's simply not viable in the long term that a small game like British RL can continue to lose its best young players to someone else who has done nothing more than flash the cash.

You also need to consider the moral implications of clubs like yours fighting tooth and nail to prevent professional athletes earning comparable wages to other top sportsmen. How is that fair? You know the salary cap has barely risen in over a decade. In reality, that is a lowering of the limit and a huge restraint of trade for professionals who've dedicated themselves to our game and have a very short career anyway. (To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't risen up against it already).

As I said earlier, I don't think the answer is a simple raising of the cap. I think a package of proposals, such as central top-up funding for established stars and dispensations on RU signings, could be one way to go. But more important than any of this, significant salary cap rewards should be offered to clubs who produce their own talent. Not only would that refocus the minds of many SL chairmen, it would also make it very difficult for outfits like Cas to put club first and vote against it.

I agree with you and can only hope our owner does too.

The amount each club gets from the TV deal mirrors the salary cap.

Ergo - increase the TV deal and so increase the cap. However here we hit a snag. Viewing habits are changing. Fewer people watch TV as they used to (online viewing has grown exponentially). The likelihood of ever getting a better deal with BBC/ITV/C4 is remote. It costs Sky a fortune to host the Thursday night game, almost a loss leader. The future is likely to contain a saturation of televised RL but at a lower price. So where does the money come from to fund an increase in the cap?

As a supporter of the cap and a lifelong socialist I've always had an eye on helping the weakest in the game. However, I'm having to come to the conclusion that my views are out of step with the modern world. Central planning (ie the cap) has only worked up to a point.

I would say in the spirit of Brexit, get rid of the cap, get the money in from wherever you can (arms dealers, drugs dealers, mass murderers)...and trust in the market!

One problem with the current situation IMO is that it makes a failing club a very unattractive proposition for potential investors. A very rich person can't just buy a club, pay off their debts, buy top players and have a chance of winning trophies.

For most clubs, ie the ones that are not spending the full cap allowance, it's almost a non-issue, in that it's not the salary cap keeping wages low, it's lack of income.

As something else to consider. Union is strong in large part because the international game allows the top players to get a big bucks central contract directly from the governing body. Would that be an option to a) promote the international game, and b) top up the wages of the best players.

Will we be able to afford it when uncle dave puts the rent up on HE'S ground?

Salary cap to increase, another marquee player, plus exemptions for U21's players. www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... per-league

Salary cap to increase, another marquee player, plus exemptions for U21's players. www.rugby-league.com/superleague ... per-league

Expect Williams to sign a new contract soon as a marquee player as he'll only count £75k on the cap. Get the lad tied up for as long as possible.

I wonder if Sam Tomkins salary cap value will now be £75K instead of the £100K it was before this new ruling?

Assume it will go down to £75k now as he'll be regarded as club trained. Think it counts as £150k at the moment (?) so we should have an additional £150k to play with for next season given Tomkins reduction and the general increase.

Looks like the vote was 7-5 in favour of the various increases. Wigan, Salford and Wire voted in favour. The Guardian are chasing the full list of for and against.