With the news that theres serious discussion about reducing the salary cap next season, how do we all feel that Leeds, arguably the biggest club in the country, are reported to be one of the clubs in favour of the reduction? Got to be honest, im massively disappointed in the club that we'r in favour of it.

Warrington reportedly announcing the signing of Greg Inglis tomorrow when they already have Widdop and Austin as marquee

Well, the pay cut the players have taken also there's a lot of the room on the cap as it stands, so it doesn't surprise me.

We have just spent tens of millions developing Headingley only for our income to totally disappear. While I don’t want the salary cap to reduce, as so too would the quality of players in Super League, it’s understandable why Hetherington does. Balancing the books is going to be an impossible task over the next few years.

It's incredibly disapointing. The players have already carried far too much of the burden for the game's poor commercial performance in the last 20 years (something that Hetherington has himself called out) and whilst it's no suprise to see some club owners and chairman expecting them to carry even more, it's disapointing to see Leeds being one of them. The salary cap is around £1m less in real-terms than it was in 2000, and that's pretty shameful even before you consider any attempt to cut it further.

Hetherington has generally voted against rising the cap in the past as he felt Leeds had a competitive advantage - at the time the club had been very good at developing a lot of first-team ready young players who could fill the squad cheaply. Crucially, unlike the likes of Wigan, they were even better at convincing those players to stay. Whether it was down to culture or some other reason, Leeds have retained their top talent in a way that Wigan seemingly couldn't, and Hetherington used the salary cap to press home that advantage.

I can understand that logic from a competitive perspective, even if I can disagree with it from the point of view that the sport should generally be looking after the players better than it is. But even from the competitive perspective, the case for voting along similar lines today seems to make less sense. Yes there is a good set of young players at Headingley, but nothing that I doubt other top clubs could replicate and certainly nothing like the class of 2002-03.

If Hetherington is worried about the sustainability of the business post-COVID and the recession that is going to follow, then cut the cloth accordingly - Leeds can do that without imposing similar cuts on those who may be able to maintain their current level of spending. However, it isn't a good look for either the club or the sport for it's most commercially successful club and the club that has been most successful in the summer era to support this sort of proposal.

Its not just a case of Leeds finances though, if Leeds only want to pay 1.8m they can, why vote to stop others paying 2.1m if they want to, its extremely self serving imo and its only the players and fans who lose out.

If Warringtons Multi millionaire owner wants to put enough money in to enable them to pay 2.1m but our multi millionaire owner dosnt, why should Warringtons be prevented from doing so? They could both afford to if they chose to.

Agree 100%

Exactly.

If Leeds, or any other club, can't afford to spend to the full salary cap, that is their problem to fix.

It isn't right to make their problem everybody else's problem.

Leeds fans demand we challenge for trophies every year

That's not really relevant. It certainly doesn't give Leeds a right to try and keep a leash on those clubs that can sustainably out-spend them at any given point in time.

Leeds should be winning trophies because they're raising the standards, not by being complicit in lowering them.

Because we have a salary cap in place. You cant have a cap and then allow teams to pay more.

Gary can only comment on our finances he wont know other clubs budgets. I doubt he even knows ours at this moment in time. If we cant afford to pay full cap after this thats the way he needs to vote (if there is even s vote).

Whilst we might not want to admit it our club is heavily in debt at the moment and whilst that debt might have been msnsgable before Covid it will make life difficult for the forseeable.

Not sure what you mean in the first sentence, im not saying teams should be allowed to pay more than the cap.

The caps already there at 2.1m for 2021 so why not leave it in place as it is? Theres no obligation for teams to spend the full cap, but the options there for teams that can. I know its in Leeds interests for the cap to be 1.8 m if they can only afford 1.8m...But its not in the interests of the players, fans or the game long term. To vote for a reduction is self serving imo.

Theres always been teams that spend less than the cap, we'd just be one of them teams for a while, better than dumbing down the whole comp yet again.

Theres 5 clubs wanting the cap to remain at 2.1m, thats potentially 1.5 million to go to the players, cant see why anyone would want to take that earning potential away from already relatively underpaid players.

Lets see where the sport is at the end of all this.

Nobody appears to have mentioned agents when it comes to salary cap. It might be £2.1 and the club only wants to spend £1.8. But an agent will push for more if they think a club has space.

I’ve always believed that the cap should rise inline with inflation. But it hasn’t.

So lets raise it and give Salford , Wakey , H.K.R and others even less chance to compete . What some of you do not get is whilst Hetherington cares about Leeds as they obviously pay his wages he also cares about R.L in general . The Marquee player was brought in for the reason of bringing quality players in to the sport and if Wire want to waste that on a near 35 year old who will have been retired 2 years then more fool them

Looking at this thread as an outsider, it's good to see that many here share the view that ambitious clubs shouldn't be penalised for showing that ambition and, at the same time, maintaining the quality and appeal of the competition in what are going to be difficult and unprecedented times ahead.

With Wire's signing of Inglis today, it is obviously a warning shot to Hetherington and the others who are looking to stifle the competition simply because they can't keep up financially - it's not like this is a cap increase, it's a decrease, basically a drop in standards in the long term, as players will rightly look to Australia or RU to support their incomes.

I also can't help but feel that the talk of franchises and a restructure of the league will rear its head again soon, if these financial rumblings continue. It's obvious there are 2 tiers now financially in the present league. In these unpredictable times, it makes no sense for the financially stronger sides to be held back by other clubs... let's face it, there are a couple of clubs who should already have been kicked out of the league years ago.

Whos mentioned raising it? No ones been bothered about teams spending below the cap in the past, should we of lowered it to 1.5 mill last season to give London a chance?

If Leeds can only afford to spend 1.8m then Leeds can spend 1.8m, if others can afford to spend the current 2.1m cap, then good for them, they should be allowed to do so.

Basing strategic decisions on the answer to the question "can Salford afford it?" is not a way to run a professional sport.

The salary cap is £1m less in real terms than it should be. If Salford, Wakefield or anyone else (Leeds included) cannot afford to compete when one of the main costs is £1m less than it should be, whose fault is that? And why should it be the players who pay for that lack of growth and poor commercial performance at club level?

The question we should be asking is not "CAN Salford or Wakefield afford it?" and instead "WHY can't Salford or Wakefield afford it?".

People like Neil Hudgell and Ken Davy will always vote to supress player wages because their clubs rely on their personal investment, so keeping those costs as low as possible reduces their personal contribution. Michael Carter will always vote likewise because he's an accountant and he wants Wakefield to stay competitive as possible whilst spending as little as possible.

I hoped Leeds and Hetherington were better than that.

I think that there is a place in sport for some sort of financial-leveling, but a blanket hard cap is a blunt instrument that arguably does more harm than good.

A better solution in my opinion would be a form of financial fair play where the cap is based on a percentage of turnover. The cap already had this element, but it was abolished around 2002.

Set the cap at a percentage of club turnover, have a mechanism in place to limit the contribution of "directors loans" that will never be repaid and then force clubs to think about their wider business. If you want to compete financially with the big boys on the field, invest in growing the business off the field to pay for it.

A couple of things...

He isn't going to be a marquee player. That's Austin and Widdop.

Danny Maguire was a near 35 year old when he won his last GF. Now he was a fine SL player, but if Inglis is even 50 or 60% the player he was, then he's a better one than Maguire.

Is this proposal to lower the cap a temporary one, or would be permanent?
Is the idea to stop clubs using the cap money they've saved by giving their players a pay cut to bring in more players?

The game like other sports is facing a challenge that it is difficult to understand how we come out the other side. What is important though is that all clubs put the future of the superleague above their own intentions.While I think it is important that we have strong fiscal governance in place which helps teams manage their finances at this difficult time I personally believe that lowering the salary cap is not the way out of this challenge. Actually if clubs have independent financial support outside of their business model then I would go so far as advocating an additional marquee allowance for them.
My reasoning is that for all sports it is going to be television contracts that sustain them.I think Rugby league can still provide a spectacle with reduced crowds and atmosphere due to the pace of the game and the onfield action. The bigger the stars like Inglis and Sonny Bill that we attract the better the TV deal. RL could be attractive to TV as our lower salary cap and player wage bills potentially means that they get more for their money comparably to football and RU. In the short term this might lead to an unbalanced competition with a couple of dominant teams however the TV money will be the difference in keeping clubs solvent. As a Leeds fan I would be happy to suffer a couple of lean years if it means that clubs survive and the wider profile of the game rises through greater exposure and higher profile stars.By the nature of this progression potentially more individual wealthy investors may become involved with clubs.
This may offend traditionalists but a strong competition with money at the top of the game will filter down to all levels and also the higher profile will get more kids into rugby as their sport of choice.

Normaly I would say the more money in the sport the better. On the other hand I think voting on anything like an amended salary cap, either way, in the present conditions is ridiculous. Lets get through the current situation and take stock of where we are at the end. Clubs & owners will be in a much better position to make informed decisions

Eventually then you will finish up with 4 clubs playing Super League as the rest can not afford it .

Your having a laugh if you think he will not be a Marquee player , with the best will in the world the main reason he is coming is for the money . As good as Inglis was i am not sure a 60% version of him would control a Grand Final like Mags . There again if he proves me wrong you would finally reach your Holly Grail