What do we think of that?

JP isn't impressed according to his comments to the Telegraph. He forsees SL losing a lot of talent to Australia (no bad thing internationally).. and for me it could also see more going to RU in the future. I

I'd have like to have seen an increase but i'm not surprised, not sure if i'm being syincal or just plain wrong

but not increasing the cap will line the pockets further of the club owners, where the crowds pulled in could (cap permitting) increase spending power of these clubs... I know we have to be sensible in these difficult financial times but Australia are increasing their cap (as JP refers to) yet we're not...

As a good chunk of each clubs cap is spent on expensive antipodean imports it may make clubs plan to develop their own players.

I think the arguments could go both ways but i do believe that the cap could have done with been increased. i think £2 million would be a reasonable figure. However I do feel there needs to be stricter control on what clubs can spend. i still dont understand how clubs are making a loss under the salary cap

There's a wide opinion that most clubs 'get round' the cap anyway. So does it really matter?

I would have to agree with that. I think 2 million would have been a perfect figure.

That said though, reading those rules, I take it Leeds have 1.75 million to spend each year? And plus on top of that you have prize money, as it says the cap is before prize money. So effectively you could be spending 2 million anyway.

Yes a good point. Trouble is though, the clubs could then lose those players once developed to the required standard to RU and the NRL..

A lot of clubs still can't afford to spend the full cap, so it needs to be kept where it is.

Who are you talking about?

Really it should be part of the licence granted that you can demonstrate your abillity to be able to utilize the full cap (if required) without it effecting your finances.

I would guess there is only Cas, Wakefield, and Salford that don't utilize the full cap. And in all honesty, that is their problem. Cas and Wakefield should merge, creating a much stronger cap, and then you would then have another team able to utilize the full cap allowance. As for Salford, I am sure the RFL will get the message in the future.

I dare you to post that on the respective boards.



I agree BTW

Correct. How long can we as a competition be held back by 2 bit clubs who will never be able to spend the cap.. who can't get a new stadium.. it's an embarrasment.

There are 14 SL clubs at present, how many are spending their full allowance?

Increasing the cap to allow some to spend more will only increase the disparity between those that have and those that have not.

The SL clubs IMO should only look to increase the cap once say 70% of the clubs (for arguments sake) are hitting the maximum.

Gary Hetherington said at the start of the season that only 3 clubs will not be in a position to utilize the full cap. Even if that was really 4 clubs, that is within your criteria tvoc.

I agree on your point by the way, but strongly feel as in all sports it should be the case of the weaker to aspire to be as strong as the others. It is up to the RFL to ensure that happens. We could still be here in another 20 years and clubs like Wakefield and Salford would not be in a position to spend the full cap. Is that really what we want in the future?

Like I said, it should be part of the licence agreement to demonstrate you will be in a position to utilize the full cap if required.

What do you mean "what am I talking about" ? What didn't you understand?

It's a nice idea that all clubs should be able to afford to spend the full cap. In fact, I'd like to see a mandatory minimum spend in the rules. However, whilst we have a number of clubs who can't spend the cap, then increasing it will only lead to disparity in the league. That's not their problem, that's our (the sport) problem.

So how are you going to fix that?

only if significantly more than half the supporters of each club were to embrace the new team and not walk away

I didn't understand which teams you were talking about, which is why I said "=#FF0000who are you talking about" rather than "what".

Ah...so you did


I'd be very suprised if Harlequins, Cas, Wakey, Crusaders, Salford, Bradford, KR were able to spend the full cap without significant external "donations" to their revenues.

There's nothing in the regulations to stop all the SL clubs spending to the full cap now. Despite what Mr Hetherington may have said the reality is Harlequins, Wakefield, Salford, Castleford, Crusaders and Bradford surely cannot be spending anywhere close to the cap. If they are with the squads they have assembled I'm not sure an increase would be in their interests.



How many licenses will the RFL be handing out if that was a requirement now?

Forcing clubs to spend money assembling squads they cannot afford to run could be a difficult concept to sell to it's members.

I'm not sure about an actual increase in the cap limit but i would definately like to see all acadamy produced players have the 1st 20/25k of their wages not count on the live cap.

I'm impressed that the chief executive of one SL club is aware of the budgets and cashflows for 2010 of the other 13 teams in the division. Quality bit of industrial espionage GH, well done.

Alternatively, he could be speculating.

That's not what I was suggesting though is it?

IMO part of the licensing criteria should be that you can demonstrate a sound financial performance to be able to spend the full cap allowance if its required. Whether you choose to spend the full cap is different of course.

I still think a merged club Cas and Wakey as an example is going to be far more secure and much stronger than the relevant pish pot clubs we have now, regarless of what noises the fans make out they will do. Same goes for clubs like Salford, who simply should not be there ahead of a club like Widnes, who probably can meet the criteria I am talking about.

Believe in the sleeve and all that...

Not many go to the NRL for money though, the flow of players is the other way.

RU has had plenty of bloody noses in the acquisition of RL players and now seem wary of chasing them. They seem more interested at the moment in stopping the flow of players to France.

Instead of having two "pish pot" clubs you'll have one.

The only way these things can work is if they are effectively takeovers of one club by another (St George-Illawarra, Wests Tigers). At least in those scenarios the fans of the "larger" club usually remain with it and the ones from the smaller side are those fall by the wayside.

If you try to produce a merged club in the Calder Valley it'll have less support than either Cas or Wakefield currently get IMO. The idea that it'll bring with it the combined average attendances of the two clubs is pie in the sky.

Attendances come with results. Cas can be a well supported club with success. Wakefield has a huge catchment area, yet is not attracting new supporters.

Who said anything about the club has to have huge support from day one? If you merge those two clubs the business's in the area would back it, make it much more financially secure. Which in turn you would hope to see an improvment in results. Which in turn then attracts the fans.

Wakefield have had many years as we are now without improving. Cas have proven they can do it, but need the right foundations which they don't have now. Do you really think it would be a better option to have these two clubs seperately with a licence in another 10 years?