I wasnt talking about Superleague, just the NRL. The players that were mentioned were all NRL players. As for Superleague i do agree that the game would suffer if too many players left. Ive always thought the Superleague cap is too low, especially as it hasnt even risen in line with inflation. But to simpley increase it wont solve the problems of keeping top players in league, it would help though. Too many teams cant even spend to the current cap.

Raising it across the board is clearly not the solution. But modifications can be made. I see no harm in clauses being inserted whereby clubs can discount the cap (or a percentage of it) on players they've signed from their own Academy. That would reward clubs who develop players, and make it easier for them to keep them.

But we've had this conversation before. I guess all we can do now is wait and see how things develop in Australia if Melbourne really are going to launch these legal challenges.

Couldnt agree more on discounted cap space for your own acadmey players. Clubs should be rewarded for bringing through youth not struggle to keep hold of them. Wigan would certainly be a decent position and in the long run in would encourage more clubs to invest in their youth, which could only be a good thing for Superleague.

I couldn't disagree more.

The cap AT THE VERY LEAST needs to increase in line with inflation (starting with a flat increase of all inflationary rises since it's inception).

Ideally, if the cap is to remain at all, then it should revert back to its original format - 50% of turnover.

Yes. This means that it has to be policed differently, but it could still be live.
Simply base it on 50% of the previous year's revenue, and ensure that teams spend no more in exactly the same way as they do now.


Additionally, there HAVE to be allowances made for the youngsters that come through your own academy and show loyalty.

This way, you don't penalise the better teams for actually marketing our great game.
As it stands right now, we're all being dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

In light of SC breaches, losing players to other codes/countries there needs to be a review of our SC. There's some sound ideas on here that I'm sure will improve the SC mechanism and need to be debated between the RFL and club owners. But, how likely is that to happen? Apart from views on here there doesn't seem to be any groundswell of support for a change. Yet I feel by not addressing we, as a sport, become weaker in terms of talent retention.

If you are only allowed to spend X on players you may well choose to spend the rest elsewhere, thereby breaking even.

The cap should be refocussed on its original target of preventing clubs getting into financial difficulty, not used as a method of helping unsuccessful/unambitious clubs remain competitive. I shall not, however, be holding my breath.....

I recall somebody suggesting that all players that have come through a club's academy and are eligible to play for GB should not be counted on the cap at all. It would certainly enourage all clubs to "grow their own"

That would be going too far, I think that we should have reductions for players who come through the clubs academy but not removing them from the cap all together. I think everybody recognises that clubs should be rewarded and encouraged to produce youth.

Just a quick question.

If the CAP had been raised with inflation since its inception. does anyone know what its current amount would be?

I would do the sums myself only i am thick with 5 f's

Quote: tugglesf78 "Just a quick question. If the CAP had been raised with inflation since its inception. does anyone know what its current amount would be? I would do the sums myself only i am thick with 5 f's'" OK. Assuming a starting point of £1.65m (I believe this is the "full" amount under the cap), and taking it from what I believe to be the SC's inception in 2001, the following are the annual inflation rates for the proceeding years (source safalra.com/other/historical-uk- ... conversion): 2001 - 1.8% 2002 - 1.7% 2003 - 2.9% 2004 - 3.0% 2005 - 2.8% 2006 - 3.2% 2007 - 4.3% 2008 - 4.0% 2009 - -0.5% (leaving cap unchanged) So, again assuming £1.65m starting point, plus an annual raise at the end of each year, based on the previous year's inflation figure, these are my calculations: 2001 - 1,650,000 2002 - 1,679,700 2003 - 1,708,255 2004 - 1,757,794 2005 - 1,810,528 2006 - 1,861,223 2007 - 1,920,782 2008 - 2,003,376 2009 - 2,083,511 2010 - 2,083,511 (Remains unchanged, due to small negative economic growth in 2009 fiscal year) I'm sure that somebody will come up with different figures, but by my reckoning, accounting SOLELY for inflation (which is the bare minimum that should be expected IMO), the cap should be just short of £2.1m by now. Feel free to tear my figures apart though.

Quote: tugglesf78 "Just a quick question. If the CAP had been raised with inflation since its inception. does anyone know what its current amount would be? I would do the sums myself only i am thick with 5 f's'" OK. Assuming a starting point of £1.65m (I believe this is the "full" amount under the cap), and taking it from what I believe to be the SC's inception in 2001, the following are the annual inflation rates for the proceeding years (source safalra.com/other/historical-uk- ... conversion): 2001 - 1.8% 2002 - 1.7% 2003 - 2.9% 2004 - 3.0% 2005 - 2.8% 2006 - 3.2% 2007 - 4.3% 2008 - 4.0% 2009 - -0.5% (leaving cap unchanged) So, again assuming £1.65m starting point, plus an annual raise at the end of each year, based on the previous year's inflation figure, these are my calculations: 2001 - 1,650,000 2002 - 1,679,700 2003 - 1,708,255 2004 - 1,757,794 2005 - 1,810,528 2006 - 1,861,223 2007 - 1,920,782 2008 - 2,003,376 2009 - 2,083,511 2010 - 2,083,511 (Remains unchanged, due to small negative economic growth in 2009 fiscal year) I'm sure that somebody will come up with different figures, but by my reckoning, accounting SOLELY for inflation (which is the bare minimum that should be expected IMO), the cap should be just short of £2.1m by now. Feel free to tear my figures apart though.

Oh cr@p.

I'm being quoted? ;p

Why is it going too far? Take any player that has been 'home produced' by the club off the cap completely. Reduce the amount you're able to spend on 'imported' players from both this country and abroad to a much lesser amount than the current cap, or even as a percentage of turnover. That would give the results the RFL is supposedly seeking with the cap i.e. preventing clubs from going bust and encouraging the development of home grown players.

Of course we know this isn't the real reason for the cap. The 50% safeguard was abolished several years ago, so this is no longer a function of the cap, and the RFL has year in, year out failed to implement any real changes to force teams to produce their own youngsters. They've paid lip service to it by reducing quotas etc. but the real answer is glaringly obvious as stated above. The real reason for the cap is to bring all teams down to the lowest common denominator fuelled by the self interest of the smaller clubs. I find it quite sad really that the teams that have been dictating policy are likely to be among the first to lose their franchises. If ever there was a case of the tail wagging the dog....

That's no longer true to be fair. The whole home and federation grown player restrictions being gradually implimented are the best thing to happen in this sport for a long time imo.