The one I linked to is specifically their Premiership deal, which while the detail was release in late 2008, only came into effect the season just finish and still has two more season to run. The one you linked to is about England games and a host of other crud (but not the Prem). However like we've both identified they earn huge amounts of money when you add in the other deals.

But in like for like terms, the domestic club deals aren't a million miles away from each other, however their deal is for more games per week than the two SL games per week Sky show.

Those who said we wouldn't get half as much as last time look very silly now. I wonder if any will have the balls to come on here or the VT and admit they were wrong. I can think of one in particular who deserves a large portion of humble lobby.

Surely the increase in TV revenue now warrants an increase in the salary cap to £2 million or even £2.5 million, providing that figure is less than 50% of a club's turnover.

I think this was the figure that was originally used when the salary cap was first brought in - a club could spend up to 50% of its turnover up to a maximum. After all the so called rationale behind the SC was to prevent clubs spending beyond their means and going bust, Curbing spending to 50% of the turnover was the means to this end.

Wigan and other well supported clubs are now penalised becuase the £1.6 million is way below 50% of their turnover. Just because Quins, Wakefield ( Saints?!!) have low crowds and thus low turnovers doesn't mean that all clubs should have to suffer.

Even £2.5 million would still be dwarfed by the NRL salary cap and Premiership RU salary cap. Hence the reason for players leaving - maybe only a few so far, but if the salary cap isn't increased next year, there will be more.

Why would they increase the cap that much when it works out around an extra £250k per team a year?

What was the £Sky deal when Mo Lindsay was in charge?

It would not be compulsory to spend up to £2million/2.5 million, but if a club could afford it because they have a turnover of £4 or £5 million, then why not?

Others have called it a communist cap and in many ways it is - as it brings all clubs in its present state/amount down to a relatively low common denominator.

I am not advocating there should be a massive disparity (ie some clubs spending £5 million or even £10/20 million when others can only afford £1.6 million - which would be the equivalent if you compared the spending power/discrepancy of Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea etc with Latics, Blackpool, Bolton etc).

In short, if a club can afford to spend £2/2.5 million, they should be allowed to - particularly if it allows them to keep certain stars from switching codes/going to NRL.

Yep, but the actual increase is even less than that. Works out less than £100k per year per team, providing we stay at 14 teams (and I'm not convinced the RFL have the bollox to drop Wakey).

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/dec/11/premier-rugby-tv-deal[/url

The increase looks to me to be just enough to cover the cost of a new/additional team, be that Wakefield or Halifax who are still hanging on, unless of course clubs take a small hit in TV money in exchange for two more home games and both are admitted.

the extra 100k should be added to the cap

We need to do something about the salary cap soon IMHO or we will be losing our best players to either the NRL, now their salary cap is increasing massively or to the RAH RAH's here or in France who seem to have money to burn at the moment.
Not only will we lose some of our best young players but it will be difficult for us to attract the best foreign imports who will be enticed by the NRL money deals.
All we will end up with is the NRL players at the ends of their careers who can't attract a big salary over there and potentially making our game less attractive to the 'neutral' viewer - result viewing figures go down Sky don't see it as a worthwhile venture and either pull out or reduce their offer next time.
The RFL need to look long term here and realise that If they don't increase the cap now the long term effects could be catastrophic for the game.
The only solution is to increase the SC to at least 2Million but with the same provisos re turnover etc and the same exemptions for players who have been at a club as a junior and after 5 and 10 years.
RFL act now or get left behind.

Yep, that's the same info I posted earlier but from a different publication.