Between Salford wanting to buy big and the player drain to other sports / places a lot off people talking about the salary cap again and how they would change it.

What if the salary cap stayed but you could pay players you have brought through more?.

What i mean is you have a squad of say 25 players. Of those 25, 15 have come through your academy and entered top flight. You then have your salary cap in place but can choose to pay those 15 players more if you wish without affecting your cap.

Obviously you would have limits but it would mean that you could keep the players you have brought through. So the likes of salford and hull kr dont just bring through talent to see it sign for someone else they can actually offer an incentive to stay.

At the same time it puts more pressure on clubs to really work on youth which can only be good for the sport.

On a minor note it might even make some matches bigger. Take a wigan saints derby. They are already high occasions but if nearly every player on the pitch had gone through ftheir respective acadamies and were practically home grown id guess that it would be even better.

Thoughts?

I prefer the idea of a relationship between BARLA and the RFL where each club has feeder amateur clubs that supply to professional clubs depending on catchment area. rather than going to the highest bidder. That way the 'poorer' clubs have an opportunity to develop youth locally and have a conveyer belt of talent coming through, build relationships in schools and local youth teams from a young age. Once the players make first grade then a percentage of their wages doesnt count on the cap. Combined with a restriction on overseas players we should see clubs predominantly represented by local players which of the vast majority of fans want to see. It will improve the standard from grassroots right the way through as there is that interaction with professional coaches withing schools and amateur right from a very young age.

I think there are only 3 teams unable to spend to cap (Wakey/Cas/Hull KR) possible 4 with Bradford surely it's time for the cap to increase to reflect this.

What is the purpose of the cap - to equalise the competition (failed) to stop clubs going bust (failed) to raise standards (failed) to adequately reimburse our best athletes or young players (failed) to attract the best talent (failed) to increase our chances at international level (failed) or to stop Wigan winning everything (this was happening anyway in 96 and 97).

First we need to know what the purpose of the damn thing is before we start tinkering with it.

I'm not a great fan of that as it imposes a restriction on a players trade. For example, in today's league a player from somewhere like Cadishead could find himself split between Salford and Warrington, I know which I would chose to try and progress my career through in that position.

A player in Lowton (Wigan Borough but Warrington Postcode) may well be a Wigan fan and find themselves in the Warrington catchment but not wanting to go to Warrington.

I have stated similar thoughts on academy produced players. My approach is incredibly simple; first years' salary - 75% exempt; second year - 50% exempt; third year (on the basis that a player is established at this point) - 25% exempt.

Whilst it is a simple approach, I do believe it to be workable. It would have to be tied in to appearances, to stop clubs filling their squads with cheap options .

I can recall Stevo saying on TV that "We have to find a way to stop this lot!! (Wigan)" Wish i knew where it was on Youtube..

Rewarding clubs for producing talent should be rewarded.

If the cap's purpose is all about stopping clubs buying success, it's probably done that - Whelan could have made Wigan the best club in the world with his pocket money. But the downside of this has been the re-establishment of Rugby League in Britain as a poor man's game.

It's no longer the case of 'if' a player like Sam Tomkins will defect to RU, it's a case of 'when'. I'd be amazed if the likes of Ryan Hall, Ben Jones-Bishop and Kallum Watkins weren't also in Union's sights. This is a massive hindrance to team planning both at club and international level, because even if you manage to persuade the players to stay, it's a big distraction and causes a lot of uncertainty. Even those who go and come back - Lee Smith and Karl Pryce for example - seem to be shadows of their former selves, having clearly been handled by inept buffoons.

What's more, given the cash status in Aus, it's now far less likely that gaps in teams will be filled by overseas players - so we need to keep our homegrown stars more than ever.

As most SL clubs now have wealthy backers, I don't see why the RFL can't start making significant modifications to the salary cap. Homegrown players should either be exempt from it or should be discounted in some way; how can that be wrong? - it would encourage player development. We could also use a central fund for marquee players - I'm sure Union has something similar - so that the creme de la creme are set up comfortably for life if they make it to the highest level in RL.

At a time when Australia is leaping ahead in terms of its funding, its player development etc, and RU, despite everything we hear about the clubs being broke, seemingly has pockets that are deeper than ever, sitting still and taking no action to hang onto our crown jewels is not an option. It really isn't.

NB

It does make you wonder what the clubs/RFL were thinking when they made the complete hash of 're-organising' the U20s and U18s.

The simplest way to allow players to earn more which is in my opinion what is definitely required is to remove the restrictions that are in the salary cap that prevent players making money from things like image rights.

Players like Chase at Cas could earn more money and it wouldn't bankrupt the club and it would mean he wouldn't have to sign for a bigger club to reach his earnings potential.

We have been trying to say the sport is professional since 1997 and yet offer a level of pay that is far too low for a pro sport in 2013.

Salary Cap should be 50% of turnover with only a players salary from his club counting. lets reward players/clubs for showing some initiative where their pay is concerned

That wouldn't stop Koukash either? He'd only have to sponsor the team with his business's and that would count as turnover so Salford could still spend maximum cap.

Well that would be fine. I didnt post a reply to talk about Salford in particular, more SL in general. If a wealthy 'sugar daddy' wants to prop up a team then thats up to them but at least it might force the smaller teams (i.e. Wakefield/Castleford/Hull KR) to at least attempt to compete with the 'big 4'

I think we more than competed with you today thanks very much

Which attitude underlines the problem.

One of the game's minnow clubs gets the odd good(ish) result and everything's alright in the garden.

Except that it isn't. As well you know.