The SC in it's current state is an utter waste of time; it was marginally better when the 50% rule still applied, now that any club can spend up to the max. (and possibly more than they can afford) we've opened it up to clubs going bust again, which is what the SC is meant to prevent.

The SC should be a percentage of earnings (say 50%) with no upper limit. This in turn will force clubs to generate higher attendances to be able to increase their spending power (you could even link it to franchises that to get a franchise 50% of your earnings must be equal to at least X). This would encourage teams to improve support, generate a higher turnover and would level the playing field somewhat (with a minimum amount each club must have available to spend on wages).

Chuck in that clubs get a reduction on (against the SC) wages for their own academy products and clubs will soon start investing in their academies too.

I think the cap was put in place as a way of saving clubs from themselves by preventing clubs A,B,C,D & E from spending much more than their income could sustain in the hope of competing with club F and club G who between them win almost all of the honours. Getting to and staying in the top flight and trying to mix it with clubs with far more disposable income was (and still is) killing many clubs. For that reason it should stay in place but I think we need to return to the 50% of income on wages limit. Hull KR are a club that recruited heavily for the season following that restriction being lifted and whilst they have finished higher they also have had large reported debts as a consequence of spending at or near the cap limit when income obviously could not sustain such spending.

For the good of the competition and the long term prospects of all clubs I also agree with having a cash limit in place as well. Yes players go to RU or to Australia when offered a bigger wage than their current club can offer, but it is personal preference as regards lifestyle, location, profile and international prospects that lead these players to take those offers rather than move over to another SL club, not just the salary cap limit. If our sport and our clubs cannot afford to match the sort of sum offered to the likes of Ashton or SBW then let them go, some other young lad will get a shot at their place in the competition and our clubs will not risk financial ruin just to keep one man in our sport.

Getting back to the benefit to clubs of a 50% rule and a cash amount limit. Having both gives clubs the stability from being less likely to spend more than their income in any given year as they have 50% of their income left to cover other costs and will not eat into the budget for day to day running (outside of players' salaries) by spending excessively for potential short term gain on the field. Having a cash limit as well allows for extra cash to be ploughed into the infrastructure.

As an example with a 50% rule in place and no cash limit Club X has a yearly income of £4million and can spend £2million on wages they do and fail to win anything, next year they bring in more new players on big money to try to buy success and this continues ad nauseum, the gound, matchday experience, youth development and crowd numbers stay the same or decline.

With a 50% rule and the existing limit of £1.65million Club X has an income of £4million but can only spend £1.65million on player wages so the extra £350k can be used to improve aspects such as youth structure, training ground, marketing, matchday experience, stadium facilities (put roof on toilets etc.) allowing the club to improve on the whole and improve its prospects for future years rather than frittering away money to try to buy a trophy and letting the rest of the club stagnate.

And what happens when he goes too? And the next one after him? And the next one after him?

For many reasons, I'm no longer as concerned about the cap as I was. But people are far too complacent about this particular aspect of it.

You need only consider when we last came close to challenging Australia's international dominance. The GB team was full of players like Hanley, Edwards, Davies, Lydon, Offiah, Betts, Myler, etc - most of whom, if not all, would not even have been in RL under the present cap system.

If every time a truly exceptional talent emerges he goes off to RU, then you're never going to have the sort of special team that can meet the Aussies on their own terms. And let's not do what fans of other clubs do and pretend this won't happen. Ashton was looking like an exceptional talent. Now we'll never know. Eastmond is really showing the goods - how long will he be around for? One year? Two at the most, I'd say.

While I agree that those who appear to be irrationally greedy - the Gasniers and SBWs of this world - will always want more than RL can provide and may as well leave, it's far too complex a situation to just say "anyone who wants a bit more can sod off". Some just want what they're worth.

With a bit of sense though that aussie coming over for a retirement fund can do your team alot of good. Brett Hodgeson at Hudders for example, he has been part of a revolution that has turned the club from average to getting to a cup final last year. Even if they don't add much playing wise some of these players simply know how to win, and can add some atmosphere to the dressing room. Read Andrew John's autobiography and see the effect he had on the Warrington players before the game in the dressing room.

Obviously there is a flip side to that, some players come over here and arn't very good, Vaeliki, or Matt King under anyone but Tony Smith. It's down to the Chairmen to find the right aussie players to come in and add something to the side that makes the deal beneficial to both parties.

agree with most on here!!

salary cap - if you are going to have one - should be a percentage of a clubs earnings i.e. 50% with no upper limit and players who have come through the academy system at that club shouldn't count on the cap.

Several clubs don't invest in their academy, they have a few that make it into the super league and then they will fill the rest of the academy with local juniors who are effectively just making up the numbers. Taking players who have come through the academy off the sc will encourage more investment in player development and finding the next Jason Robinson, Joe Lydons, Ellery Hanleys. Another point is we lose so much potential because these young players who break into the first team squad are often offered contracts in which they would earn more working in McDonalds. Many may not agree with premier league football size wages or in fact Fieldens lol but I believe wages should be on par with RU. Certainly wages should be higher so that they dont find other sports or other occupations to be more attractive than playing our great game.
Another point of the SC is that a player should be able to get other income such as image rights etc and not count on the cap and if a sponsor wants to pay to get a certain player and cover is wages or give them an house etc it should be allowed.
Better a player gets the more hes worth - clubs cant afford to keep hold of them so other clubs or others sports gain from our work and investment in that players develoment!!!

Agreed with most on here 50-60% salary cap and -50% salary cap for home grown players

Id also like to see academy players who break into the first team to not count on the salary cap for their first season, thus promoting clubs to give more young players a chance in SL

I agree that we should have an NRL style 3rd party payments, but there should be a limit on that (i think its currently $150,000 in Aus). I deffinately dont agree with a sponsor paying wages etc, that would go down a path that would ruin smaller clubs.

There is one part of the Salary Cap i agree with. If the cap wasnt there then there is a good chance we'd all have teams paying huge sums of money in total and our tickets would go up. As it stands the Rugby is good to watch the talent is there and if they are willing to sod off to yawnion for more money then we dont want them in our game anyway (except those twilight players who go to add a few more years to their careers having paid their dues).

I dont think that Homegrown talent should be exempt from the cap but I think they should count less. If they wer exempt then they'd be getting ridiculous wages and the costs would be passed on to the fans in ticket prices.

Simple. If every team could spend the full cap then it would be fantastic!

Every team cannot spend to the cap, therefore we should get rid IMO.

I agree its already an unfair playing field

my solution to this would be to allow clubs to spend a certain level of the last years turnover on players in the following season. Reward commercial success and endeavour. I would also give an exemption against home grown players.

I would not penalise overseas players the quota rules should be tightened up as they seem to be doing to deal with that problem. Some overseas players bring so much to SL I do not want this to be put in jeopardy. I would love a system that only allowed for 3 overseas players that was followed by all clubs.

When it comes to a quota it should be all non-EU players. About 4 non-EU players would do. We need to limit the amount of overseas players. Even we have too many.

The salary cap was started so that clubs wouldn't overspend and go into administration or liquidation. On that basis it has failed!
We have clubs year after year going into admin, cva and most SL, Champ and Champ 1 clubs are running heavy financial losses.
The idea that it was meant to even out the competitions was never thought of at the start. Nor has it done.
SL was supposed to be the elite competition in Rugby League.
Next thing the elite SL is being levelled down by the salary cap at a static figure so the actual amount of £s are losing their value every year.
It started at £2m, then reduced to £1.8m. Following various scams to circumvent the SC by SL clubs (who'd voted for it of course) the National Insurance element was deducted, so we are now at £1.65m.
In spite of inflation over the past ten years the puchasing power of the SC has reduced in real terms.This has lowered the standard of Super League and no doubt the other leagues too.
With the same two clubs coming first and second in SL for the past three season it can hardly be called a competitive league!
The longer the SC is run on the basis it is the standard will decrease.
This of course suits the majority of SL club chairmen who continually vote for the £1.65m as they run clubs that cannot compete and they have not the expertise to take their clubs forward to a far higher level than they are now.
As one former SL club CEO said to me, "the tail wags the dog in Rugby League".
"The four or five clubs who want to improve the game are being held back by the majority nine or ten who have no ambition whatsoever".
As long as the salary cap is in force RL will go backwards in this country.
It should be abolished as soon as possible.

It doesn't follow that the teams that pay most on wages charge the most for tickets. That is not true now and if a club is well run as a business it will get most of its income from sponsorship and so on compared to gate receipts.

If the salary cap were divided equally among the 25 players its for that's an average wage of £66K. Now we know some get much more than that and so some get less. In my opinion £66k (never mind less than that) is peanuts for a professional sportsman in one of the main spectator sports of this country.

Cruncher his the nail on the head with this remark IMOWhile I agree that those who appear to be irrationally greedy - the Gasniers and SBWs of this world - will always want more than RL can provide and may as well leave, it's far too complex a situation to just say "anyone who wants a bit more can sod off". Some just want what they're worth.'"

I think we need to keep the salary cap. Its needs bringing up to date though. Clubs should be allowed to spend 50% of last seasons income with no limit such as the £1.65m we have at the minute. This does not punish forward thinking clubs such as Wigan, Leeds, Wire and promotes pregression with clubs such as Huddersfield as they grow season after season. I also think we should lower non federation produced players to three. If you were not trained at a European clubs academy then you count on the quota. Players such as Feka, Carmont, Tommy would count. With regards to the academy players counting on the cap then they count for the first season they play in Super League but the next year have a 10% reduction meaning players will not count after 10 year. Players like Cunningham at Saints would not count and it rewards both the club and player for loyalty as the club can offer a bigger contract. Its not perfect but its IMO its better than what we have.