I always think it would be interesting if we did refer to ourselves as just "rugby" once in a while. The rah rah lot definitely seem to have the monopoly on the term at the moment; it would just be interesting to see if it would make any difference.

A small point and slightly OT I know, but your last sentence got me thinking of something I've thought for a while.

Sadly SP2 you are swallowing the Pro Cap propaganda that has steadily infiltrated our sport.

The CC was not introduced to ensure "competitiveness". It was introduced to stop teams "overspending". Somehow it has been manipulated into it's current state and intent via a perverse osmosis....

Sorry, if I wasn't being clear: "competitiveness" was meant tongue in cheek.

If it can't be increased/scrapped then clubs need to work within its constraints by being given other incentives i.e. rewarding player loyalty/youth development. Surely a player giving 10 year's service to one club can't have their full salary counted towards the cap. Even a player giving 5 year's service should have some of their salary discounted.

No it doesn't, you're right. At least in relation to the clubs that aren't making an effort to raise revenue even to the point where they could spend the full cap.

But you're still seeing things in isolation. We need clubs to be forced to put in place business plans which provide for stability and sustainable growth. We could then raise the cap, slowly and after a period to allow clubs with weaker management to sort themselves out.

You're also missing the point still that the status quo is unsustainable. If we don't change things then the pro game is not going to survive in its current form over the longer term. The SC has to be raised, if we don't then in 10 or 15 years time player wages will have been eroded by inflation to the point where there won't be enough cash in RL to support full time squads, and quality athletes will have left for other sports or will not have bothered to take up RL professionally in the first place.

And this is the key point, (and one that many on here have laughed at when it has been made before).

Let me put it this way. How many youngsters grow up with a burning ambition to become full time volleyball players?

Q.E.D.

That a terrible question.
Its so obvious that wigan have improved because they are a better run club under lenigan.nothing to do with the SC.

Could you explain why "Lenegan Paint Strippers sponsors Sam Tomkins". Would be a problem? It's no different (in terms of this discussion) to "Ford cars sponsors Sam Tomkins". As long as the revenue comes from outside of the club's direct finances it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. IL is as entitled to spend his money in this way if he so chooses as is Applicado, Engage, Ford or anyone else for that matter! The fact is we would be able to market, and so retain, our (and by that I mean Rugby League's) marketable assets without laying the burden at the door of the sport and it's clubs. Like I say, maybe it's too uncomplicated a solution for the RFL....

Aye Jimmy! I notice it's being conspicuously ignored by most on here. I should have known better. Never get in the way of a good rant or vested interest!

I would have thought it was obvious. If you are capping certain expenditure such as direct payment through the club (ultimately by IL), then setting up a "dummy" company and "sponsoring" a player is an easy way around it.

From the players perspective, there is no difference from earning £1 a week from the club and £999 a week from the "sponsorship" to earning £1000 from the club.

It only matters if you care about the mythical level playing field!

Well I know that both Saints and Leeds have definitely grown their revenue so my argument works with the two teams with whose revenue totals I am familiar. How are the others doing do you know? I'm guessing the two Hull teams might well have increased their revenue and possibly Huddersfield and Warrington as well. That wouldn't be bad going and would match with the fact that they are also the teams who are consistently in the top eight. If that isn't an incentive for growing your revenue then what is?

I understand what you're saying BK, what I don't understand is why you see it as a problem. What does it matter where the sponsorship (or any other monies) come from as long as they are not from the club. The point is, clubs can't just set up 'dummy companies', as you call them, to pay players as they would have to be shown in the accounts. It's no more open to abuse than is an envelope stuffed with money. It simply wouldn't happen. Trust me when I say the Tax Man is way too smart for that! If IL wants to sponser a player through one of his other companies then fair enough. He's as entitled to do so as any other business...or at least, should be. I can't see any reasonable argument against it if I'm being honest! It's little or no different in principle than JJB sponsoring the Wigan team when DW was in charge...

From the last financial year that clubs have issued their accounts for only three clubs turned a profit: Leeds, Hull and Warrington (and Leeds only because of a big one off "windfall" against an option on the stadium) whilst the year before only Hull and Leeds showed a profit. So yes that means each year 12 clubs are spending money they don't have eg expenditure exceeds income = they make a loss.

Considering how veherently you seem to be supporting an increase in the cap the fact you didn't even realise this is astounding. So again where is the additional revenue going to come from to pay increased salaries in a sustainable manner?

Intertesting about sponsors paying players salaries. Where are theses sponsors going to come from? It was only the other season Wigan struggled to find a main shirt sponsor.

That is the truth of the matter.

Also the argument against individual sponsorship of players not being feasible that is not strictly true. The Wigan first team squad is sponsored already but the money goes to the club as income not the players as salary. This kind of sponsorship comes from local businesses or supporters so the question is, if the incentive was there for players to get sponsored by bigger companies would their agents be able to secure them such a deal? I reckon they might be able to do so and it would be in their interests to promote their clients and get them noticed nationally far more than they are now.

When at Wigan Andy Farrell was a well known sportsman nationally and he would have easily attracted attention from sponsors in my opinion. Martin Offiah was another, Jonathan Davies would have done and Paul Sculthore as well. These days it looks like Chris Ashton is heading towards being the most well known rugby player and I can't say any current RL star has a national profile like him or those past players I mention but the crux of the matter is they aren't going to get one if there is no incentive for anyone to push for it.

The fact we don't have nationally known players at the moment or that most clubs are not pushing the boundaries of the salary cap are not a justification for anything but signal there is a problem within the sport that needs sorting out. It should be taken as a given that the salary cap should rise with inflation as it was originally intended to do and the fact the inflation increase in the cap has never happened should set the alarm bells ringing.