We really need the sport to get away from that.
Half the teams in the league will always lose more games than they win. If all teams are dependant on results for fans, half are always in trouble.

Besides, the merger didn't really work for Shuddersfield or Gateshull did it?

I think ground sharing would help Cas and Wakey but doubt they will ever merge!

Again it is a misunderstood concept.

Would I stop supporting Leeds if they were losing? the answer is no. But would I stop supporting Leeds if they were uncompetitive and poor to watch? The answer would be yes after a sustained period.

Results to me is in performance, not necessarily scoreline. When I said attendances would increase on results I meant performance.

I say again, that a strong performing club in that area would achieve higher attendances as one club.

x2

Why on earth should the salary cap increase?

These are difficult times for all, especially professional sporting clubs. Salary inflation has been at 0% for some time so what is the justification for an increase? Has club revenue increased significantly over the last 12 months?

Where will this extra money magically come from anyway?

How many English players could demand a higher wage in the NRL than they could get over here.

It should be part of the licence agreement to demonstrate you will be in a position to utilize the full cap if required. If the clubs can't they don't get a licence. Simple.

Which of the existing clubs would struggle to meet that requirement now?

Being in a position to do it and doing it are two different things.

So lets say for arguments sake the clubs demonstrate they could spend the full cap but then proceed not to, what happens next?

__________

I'd agree that there should be a minimum cap as well as a maximum cap with all clubs expected to spend between the two figures. Over time the bottom figure should then be increased to close the gap while accepting there will always be some disparity between clubs.

You are a numpty. Andy G and other are correct, you merge two SL in Cas & Wakey and you get virtually no extra support. The majority of Cas fans that don't support this new club will get behind the new Cas team that applies to enter the National League probably 1 to 2 years later, and with good support for a National League club!

Wakefield's biggest problem is SL worst ground by far (ironically, with he best pitch by far!). The know this and are working bloody hard to make a new ground a reality. I think this will put big increases on their gates initially but still then settle down to a good 2k to 3K on their current average. Warrington anyone!

Also, is this the same Wakefield you are knocking for not having improved who won the academy last year and where out and out the best side in that competition, also by far?

Lets also clear this one up, no club breaks the cap, they can't given it's live (unless they run a dodgy, complex and highly illegal financial scam a la Melbourne). You can however use currently non-illegal means to reduce your tax burden and the personal tax burden of some of your players, which means you still spend exactly as much as you are allowed (£1.65m plus extra exceptions) but the players take home more money because they pay less tax.

This is not breaking the cap, or the spirit of the cap, and until HMRC are able to get a legal challenge up-held, it remains legal.

I thought it was the other way round.I'm sure I read that Burgess took a pay cut to go the NRL as did Morley and Ellis.

Ellis took less money to come to Leeds as well. At this rate by the time he finishes he'll be paying a club to let him play.

Quite a few. As the pound is currently very weak and the Australian dollar strong combined with the NRL cap expected to be increased incrimentally over the next few years untill it doubles we will probably see an exodous of our top stars.

How many English players would be wanted by NRL clubs

Graham............O'Loughlin.............?

Like Radlinski?

Similar to that idea, yes.

Except his wife won't be quite so well paid I'm sure.

We're doomed!

Is the right answer.

The game is skint, apart from a handful of clubs, and most of those are wealthy only because they have a wealthy backer. If those guys pulled out those clubs would be up poop creek.

For what it's worth, I dont feel there is a particular need to increase the salary cap, I would however echoe some earlier thoughts around the need to reward teams for producing home grown talent.

I believe that any squad member who has come through the teams academy structure should still count on the 25/25 (or whatever it is now) list, but that 50% of their salary should not count on the cap. I would leave a limit (25/25) to stop teams stock piling all of the youngsters, but I really think teams should be rewarded for not only producing the talent, but for sticking by these players and giving them the opportunity to cement a place in the first team squad. The reason I choose 50% of their salary is that, if you take a player like Sinfield, he has become a mafor member of our squad and will no doubt be one of the bigger wages, therefore to only give an allowance of 25k, wouldn't make that much of a dent in his salary.

Following a principle similar to this would hopefully encourage more clubs to stick with young, homegrown talent, rather than bringing in average foriegners. Dont want to have a dig at any particular teams, but do we (as a league) really need to be relying on players like Julian Rinaldi?

That's all well and good but I see two issues:

1. Are there enough talented kids out there who are being denied first team rugby by the likes of Rinaldi? I'm not sure there are. You run the risk of watering down the quality of RL just in order to get homegrown players in the team.

2. Any system that favoured clubs for getting homegrown talent in the first team would have to take into account where the club was. For instance it's easier for Leeds and Bradford to promote local talent as they're both clubs in RL areas. It's not the case for Quins or Crusaders. Clubs that have a harder time producing youngsters should get more of a reward.

They are fair points, in answer to the first point, I think it's clear at certain clubs there is currently a need for the Rinaldi's of this world, and my suggestion is not to stop allowing these signings, more to reward clubs for promoting youngsters from the academy. The clubs would still have the rest of their salary cap to spend as they wish. It's more to prevent clubs losing talented youngsters they have brought through the system to other teams/sports. I think long term this would have a positive effect as it would stop good youngsters leaving as their clubs could offer them a substantial deal, knowing that only half of their salary will count towards the cap, meaning they wouldn't have to get rid of a decent youngster for the short term fix of a more expensive journeyman who may well do a better job in the very short term.

As for the second point, I dont see it as being an issue, Crusaders and Quins do undoubtedly have a harder job as they aren't in the heartlands, however they have theoretically got a much bigger catchment area, so with the benefit of using home grown players, it would force their hands even more so to work on their junior infrastructure. Plus the youngsters in their areas would know that if they are to make it to the big time, the potential is there for big earnings, as once again only half their wage would count towards the cap.

No doubt there would be teething problems, and certain clubs would have an early advantage due to having better structures already in place, but should these clubs be punished/held back because they've had the forsight to set up good academies etc?

We're talking about nearly all the clubs not being able to make a profit with the current salary cap level. How would they do if half the salaries of home grown talent don't even count towards the cap (i.e. pushing up their cost base)

I think bring the cap down to about £1.2M every club spending the maximum would make it a more even and entertaining competition. Possibly have something like U21's are excempt.

My arguement would be that although the clubs would have the ability to spend more than the cap, it would be up to them as to whether or not to do this. There would probably have to remain regulations in place to stop clubs spending money they haven't got. Similar to the one currently based on only spending a percentage of your turnover.

One of my reasons behind this view is after looking at the Melbourne fiasco. Although they cheated, part of me can understand their frustrations. A large chunk of their major players have come through their junior set up, and they couldnt afford to keep them legally. Why should a club be penalised for spending time and money helping to develop talented players to a point where they can demand massive salaries for them to then have to leave that club to earn the money they deserve?