Nah, you just allow the currently successful clubs to use their prize money to pay players more and then bury your head in the sand about the consequences of not having a successful trophy ridden year or having to spend that money on things like ground safety due to deteriorating stadiums etc.

Why would that happen with the home-grown and federation trained rules in place? If needs be these rules could be strengthended.

Wigan have one of the best youth systems going with many players who took part in the WCC game home-grown. Leeds and Saints have good systems and its no coincidence IMO they have been sucessful sides.

If there has been a problem with transfers in recent years in the era of the salary cap its too few clubs doing this and living off other clubs production lines. Hudds are Wigan MkII. Prior to this the obsession with Kolpak players was a fine example of the short term thinking of those running clubs.



Well I am glad someone thinks they are underpaid because they are. As to it being a bigger challenge now given the current climate to raise money this is true but at least it should affect the rival sports as well. The problem is the sport has failed to raise the income enough to increase the cap well before the financial crisis happened so I don't see the crisis as a legitimate excuse for whay the cap has remained stuck at the current level. It would be too easy to blame the crisis for an inability to increase revenue going forward over the next few years but I am sure the RFL will do so.

That's a fair and valid point - with such rules in place it should mitigate if not stop those kind of situations from arising. Although there is also the problem that if you start telling clubs that they must pay some sort of penalty for bringing their junior players in from outside of their own service area you could argue that it is anti competetive and you are denying kids from signing on with clubs that they want to be at, rather than clubs their are geographically assigned to because of where they happen to live and/or play their junior rugby.



Agreed. My complaint about Warrington at the moment is that we do not have enough home grown players in our side, that is gradually starting to change but given the terrible starting point we had (When Cullen came to the helm, we had one player from the area, Clarke - and he wasn't a product of our Junior system, but Wigan's), it's going to be at least a few more years before we can see the staffing levels even out to a more acceptable "locally produced" level in comparison to Wigan/Leeds/Saints.



No arguments from me on that, Dave.



Anybody who thinks they aren't perhaps don't realise the truth of the matter. the "stars" of the game may be on what those of us on national average wages may consider to be a lot of money, but for what they put their bodies through and the entertainment they provide it is still way too low - and the general unrecognised work horses in teams would be lucky to be on anything even approaching £30k a year.



It will affect them of course but comparatively I think it will affect them slightly less, the more glamorous sports are still a draw, the monies involved may be less but will still be substantially more than RL can ever dream of bringing in. It is the unfortunate truth of things.



It's good to see you at least agree with me that the only logical way we can increase the cap is to first concentrate on bringing more money in to the sport. I'm not sure those who simply say "we should be allowed to spend more" really realise the financial state of the game and what would be required to do so in a sustainable way. The argument of "we're being restricted to the same spending level of the small clubs" is hogwash IMO, I reckon at the moment only Wigan, Warrington and Leeds are able to spend up to the full salary cap, Saints may be able to do so once their new ground is built and they can start bringing more money in through corporate hospitality and sponsorship, and of course the decreased revenue drain that was maintaining Knowsley Rd for safety in previous seasons, and this season renting a ground from a third party. If saints are already spending at the full level, it would surprise (and impress) me.

What has the salary cap got to do with clubs going broke?
All the clubs that have gone bust recently have been under some sort of salary cap depending on their division. They, nevertheless, have gone broke. The salary cap has not stopped them doing so.
It original and sole purpose was to stop clubs going broke, it has failed. The SC needs to be replaced by a system that WILL stop clubs going broke.
Perhaps instead of the SC we need a "Financilly Break Even" rule.
Then clubs can spend money where they like and where they need to as long as they financially break even at the end of the tax year.
Club's finances would be judged on the accounts submitted to Companies House.

On the separate issue of recruitment, training and retaining of players then perhaps go the Aussie way and introduce a points system.
The Aussies are trialling a system this year and next to eventually replace their salary cap.
We need a points system to suit British Rugby League and not just replicate the NRL version when it is decided upon.
The purpose to encourage clubs to recruit, train and improve players to first team level. Clubs who produce Internationals would be rewarded and those who bring in Internationals from abroad or other British clubs have a restrictive points base. Easy really.
The RFL/SL need to get to work on it quickly or else it will be another thing the Aussies will be leaving us behind on.

No SL club could build that STG team..

Its a huge advantage for the NRL teams

More heads in the sand. Please listen: Rugby League is not as popular in this country as it is in Australia, so it is entirely logical that they have a perceived financial advantage. Attempting to spend the same money as them when the sport does not generate nearly the same level of revenue from TV contracts and commercial sponsorship deals is tantamount to self destruction.

The challenge for the game is to INCREASE REVENUES, if the game is richer, and the clubs find themselves with more money burning holes in their pockets, then the logical outcome is that they will all vote as one to increase the salary cap level.

I'm really starting to wonder about the average IQ levels on rlfans these days considering people don't seem to "get it". Maybe it's the credit card culture in this country. "Oh I can't afford to buy that with my wages, oh I'll just get a CC so I can have it now".

Also, the complaints re: the salary cap being there to "stop the good clubs getting better" - you seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that Aus operate under a salary cap as well, and Melbourne, having been found to have flouted it, were dealt with FAR MORE SEVERELY than the RFL would ever DARE treat a club here for breaching regulations. They take the salary cap more seriously than we do!

What's that, having better players?

Having so many world class players in one team yes .

A SL club couldn't get Gasnier,Cooper and boyd in there team..thats not including the morris's and weyman's and the rest.

Yep, that's right, we couldn't. and we shouldn't. We should be producing our own.

Thankfully (and this is making me sick in my mouth a bit to say this), at least Wigan are going the right way with producing quality juniors. Tomkins brothers especially.

Interesting that St Helens assistant coach is on sky sports news blaming the salary cap for RL loosing players to RU.

FWIW i am in favour of the salary cap but in its origional guise. Limiting it to a percentage of turnover prevents one or two money men throwing money at certain clubs 'a la' abramovic but creates an insentive to and rewards any individual club who increase their turnover.

I don't think complete hogwash about being restricted to the spending levels of smaller clubs. By this I mean some clubs will always vote against an increase in the cap because they can't afford it and seemingly never will be able to. They are in the majority so the cap does not get raised.

Now on the face of it clubs who can't afford a rise voting against sounds reasonable but what is seemingly not happening is they don't seem to be increasng revenue so they too [icould[/i vote for an increase in the cap. So IMO when people complain we have a salary cap set at a level that panders to the smaller clubs the root of this complaint is these clubs do not seem capable of ever generating increased revenue so we will always be stuck at this level of cap.

It seems to me the only way around this is to insist clubs have a certain level of turnover (or proper business plans to get there for new franchisees) to get or retain a franchise. It should be a goal of all clubs to increase revenue and while that may be the case at some point certain clubs will hit a ceiling and just won't be able to increase it any more. They need to stand aside for clubs that can or could do so or I can't see how the cap will ever be raised.

Maybe there aren't enough possible "replacement" clubs to do this and if so we ought to stop kidding ourselves RL can remain a pro sport.

My fear exactly.