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.

Wasn't Tommy at Broncos/Quins from being about 16 years old? I think that's why he doesn't count on the quota. He is treated as a London Broncos/Quins developed player.

Tommy played for Auckland/New Zealand Warriors before going Qunis.

Tommy doesn't count because he played x years in the u.k. before he was 21.

The salary cap is a good thing as it always has been but the same as it has been for the past few years it's too low imo. The game is getting faster and tougher as the players get bigger and fitter yet the squads are too small and not many sides can afford to carry much more then 16 or 17 experienced pro's in their sides.

It's forcing teams to play kids which is good but sometimes they aren't quite ready imo. It is also forcing teams hands when handing out contracts to young players and they can't afford to pay lads what they deserve. I really think we risk losing guys like Eastmond to Union because they just can't earn the money their talents deserve in rugby league.

Still can't see a downside for salary cap incentives to develop and include academy players in a first team squad.

The quota coming down is fantastic and that along with a slightly increased salary cap would make the game look very healthy.

We'd have a mostly British core to the sides and they'd be able to bring the very best overseas players in possible aswell as pay all the British lads what they deserve.

What do you mean by slight increase in the cap? If you wanted to add £10K to the average wage of the 25 players wages that's £250,000 and would put the cap to £1.9m. Make it a more worthwhile £20K average rise and you are talking of adding £500,000 to the cap taking it to £2.15m.

I don't think a cap of around £2m is unreasonable but any increase at all will get voted down as would any idea of a 50% rule or any form or any exception for home grown players etc simply because too many clubs could not pay out what these changes would demand.

That is why a salary [ifloor[/i should be introduced that all clubs must be able to pay to and actually pay to. If the cap were increased to £2m and the floor was 90% of that then it would require all clubs to pay out £1.8m in wages - the original level the flat rate cap was set at back in 2002, eight seasons ago.

If all clubs could do that and did then there would be a level playing field as £200K is not going to make a huge difference and really would be there for bonus payments for winning teams not basic wages anyway.

If after eight seasons some clubs still can't afford to pay out £1.8m in wages questions need to be asked IMO. All the franchise points for geographic location, good facilities, playing success and so on smack of a head in the sand approach when the first test any club should have to pass is it's ability to pay out to the cap level IMO.

Dave