Reading some of the press in recent days, it seems to me that spending the full cap can be a handicap … and interview with Leeds suggested that they are keen to keep Hardaker but are already at full cap next season and need to make space to accommodate him… likewise at Warrington whose offloading of Bullock and Holmes is being driven by needing to free up cap space to sign a new half back…

Does having more money just mean you are likely to be more frivolous??

Ps… the scenario is likely to lead to players being available and some of their salary might be covered but the frivolous clubs…

I think if you where to ask MC and JM, they wouldn’t mind having ago at being in Leeds’ dilemma

This is the whole point of the SC for me - it stops rich clubs hoarding players just to stop other clubs having them.

Apart from trying to ensure clubs don't go pop spending money they can't sustain, it spreads the talent around more.

I do wonder if chairman stating they are at full cap like with hardaker could also be a method of getting a player to sign a lesser contract

I’m not sure that a club wage bill is open to the public so could be exploited in that way?

I don’t think you have to sorbs full cap to be frivolous.

Gigot and Lineham are proof of that.

Dboy I remember Leeds for many a season buying players to prevent other clubs from signing them.
Quite often the players would struggle to get a game in the Leeds a team.

Do not understand that clubs say they have got to get rid of a player because of S C Though they could bring in two players that did not count on S C Think it is more down to the fact that clubs are so much in det they are beginning to struggle for cash especially Leeds who owe millions on there new stadium .That is why there paying rent on part of it

It can be a burden to those clubs who spend it to the max, but if you are a club in a position to, then you are more likely to, as we are in a results based industry, though it doesn't always work that way, and Warrington have been prime examples of this.

I'll hold my hand up, and say I've been guilty in the past of transfer rumours, on what we hear. We all have, I think at times.

FWIW, even if we could spend the full cap, I wouldn't if I were in MC or JM's shoes. I'd hold a little back, should a key player pick up a long term injury, so it could be covered in the best way possible

I

I think what may have happened here is cause and effect.

The SKY revenue has been substantially reduced. Thus the cap for 2022 onwards must be lower than it was, unless it doesn't work like that? I doubt the shortfall has been made up from elsewhere. So due to the fact that clubs like Leeds/Wigan/Warrington and Saints tend to offer long contract I suspect they have a number of players on bigger deals than they would have offered pre the new deal.

Doesn't affect us as we were never anywhere near the old cap.

However if they want to refresh or bring through young players then something has to give. I can see clubs like these putting players out on subsidised loans or just letting go.

I can see a lot of movement of what used to be called journeymen but are now called squad players, though personally I call then the players who cement teams together in an unsung way.

Applegarth will know many of these players well and should be in a good position to pick off the better ones. It will be his first big test.

Why would reduced Sky money reduce the Cap?
If Leeds can get an average of 10k per game, they can afford to spend the cap.
Sky money isn't the only income available.
That ultimately should be the IMG and club aims, to increase revenues.

The salary cap hasn’t reduced, just the the TV income. Hence the bigger clubs or those with wealthy benefactors can continue to spend the same big money whilst the rest struggle to keep up. It’s up to those clubs, of which we are one, to aim to catch them up.

Typical RL, the cap is supposed to be commensurate with the clubs incomes and that has clearly been reduced for all teams. I totally believe you by the way but it makes a mockery of it all, well to me anyway.

But clearly some can still spend to the salary cap. Why would you stop them spending their money.

But that’s the point of the cap isn’t it? It’s to stop clubs from spending more than others purely because they can and thus level the playing field a little. So if clubs are getting less from Sky but the cap stays the same doesn’t that instantly widen the gap between rich and poor. We have even less chance of competing, or am I missing something?

Without the cap clubs like Warrington could and would spend double the cap and we’d be stuffed.

Although yes, the point of a cap is to balance the league and is there to stop a club like Warrington buying two teams worth of players,.......it shouldn't be set at the lowest clubs level. Otherwise you end up with a low quality league.
It should be set at something achievable but also a stretch. In my opinion.

Leeds and Warrington would have every right to complain we are dragging the quality down if we can't get some investment to help us plug the gap at least in park.
Especially when the likes of Leigh probably can.