But to compete with the NRL we'd have to double the finite cap limit; theirs is over £4 million, and Union is even more, I think £7 million. Our sport simply can't match those sorts of figures, with or without the cap. The income isn't there, and even the richest owners wouldn't pay out those sorts of wages, year after year.

We just need to change this pernicious culture that says players will only prove themselves if they 'do it in the NRL'.

Someone should advise these lads that snide comments like this mainly come from fans of clubs whose players are rarely of interest in Aus.

For a reality check, our kids need only to look at Sam T, who after a first great season Down Under, had a second season riddled with injury and subsequently is now ridiculed in certain quarters for 'not having succeeded'.

You don't have to play badly in Aus for their press to jump on you, and enough said about some of the keyboard warrior idiots over here. I reckon it can be a thankless undertaking for youngsters who, in some cases, have barely even experienced living away from home.

Staying in SL is no bad option.

Exactly. Look at Radlinski, Senior, Hall, Long, Fielden, Cunningham, Peacock and Sculthorpe. They never left Super League, some of them never even left the club they debuted for, but they clearly proved themselves. If we look back at Williams as on a par with these players, then he will have had a great career.

That was a different time when the gap between SL and NRL wasn't as wide as it is now, every one of those players would have gone looking for the extra coin in Aus if they were around today in their prime. This vote is a step in the right direction towards closing that gap.

I agree and I also don't think even with big money on offer every talented players only ambition is to earn big bucks in the NRL. Some will be quite happy to have an SL career but there comes a point where even those that would like to will just have to leave if we are so far behind money wise or forever regret it.

And lets not forget there are some who just might fancy a different lifestyle. It's why Pat Richards came to us and no doubt why he went to Les Cats at the end of his career. Can't blame him for that or others who go for similar reasons regardless of who offers what cash.

That said I have always argued we don't necessarily need to [imatch[/i the cap levels of the NRL or RU to retain the [ibest[/i players. RU and the NRL only tend to come after the best and if we can offer the best big wages then they are going to have to break the bank to get them and upset their own wage structure. The marquee rules will help here.

As to the raise in the salary cap itself, it is a small step in the right direction. To put it in perspective it is what Wigan were paying when the flat rate cap came in years ago. We had contracts worth £2.1m when the £1.8m cap level (of the time) came in and has special dispensation for a season to carry on paying it as contracts were already agreed. It's better but not that brilliant.

As others have said we need more money in the game so wages can be higher. Raising the cap does disadvantage clubs without a rich benefactor if the there is no increase in central funding/TV sponsor money across the board. One possible solution to this is to remove the restrictions on what players can earn outside the sport in terms of sponsorship. Remember in the past we had Paul Sculthorpe as the face of Gillette but there is no incentive for players to do that now if paid. Anything they earn from a sponsorship deal counts on a clubs salary cap. It really is nuts. There is no point in a company asking an RL star to be the face of whatever. Their club can't agree to it. Not only do the players lose out but so does the sport on publicity. It really is the worst aspect of the salary cap rules.

Stains, Cas, Wakey , Huddersfield and Widnes the 5 teams who voted against.

That's in todays League Express.
League Weekly has Leeds, Cas, Wakey , Huddersfield and Widnes the 5 teams who voted against.

However both publications state that only Wigan and Saints are using the marquee player rule this season.

Salford aren't using with with Todd Carney? I'm surprised by that.

I'm surprised at either Saints or Leeds voting against, tbh. The other 4, yes. Who is saints marquee player, Roby?

In which case I don't understand how the SC changes were voted through.

Seems odd.

[Aboveusonlypie mode] It should be Matty Smith. He may not tend to lead the team or throw great passes. His kicking out of hand and off the tee were both average, and he isn't the type of half who makes line breaks or scores tries. You also shouldn't judge a halfback by his defensive qualities. However, Matty is a good honest professional who kicked drop goals and gave Williams the space to try to do everything else himself. We would still be unbeaten with him. [/Aboveusonlypie mode]

Morgan will be Saints marquee player. They seemed to think they had signed the new Jamie Lyon

Brilliant!

Good interview with Rads on the salary cap and other issues on this week's BBC 5 live podcast: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04znkf2

Good interview with Rads on the salary cap and other issues on this week's BBC 5 live podcast: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04znkf2