To be honest, there are all manner of potential schemes that have merit. You seem to ultimately agree with the ends, though not the means, so it's just a moot point.

My guess (and it is only a guess) would be that an approach such as you suggest has been discussed. The fact is that after whatever discussions have taken place, it is the approach with the link to the England ETS and Knights that has been agreed.

The arguments for this approach were obviously compelling enough to reach a strong enough consensus to ratify the amendment.

Personally, I don't have a format that I would particularly favour.

At least the RFL are trying to keep English players in super league and that's a good thing. I think we can all agree with that.

But they aren't Pete. Do you really think these allowances will actually be spent on English players? This whole situation came about because Wigan needed a centre and couldn't get one because they didn't have enough on the cap to get a quality player. So they moaned about the cap and got these dispensations passed with no thought put into the decision. The day after Leneghan boasts about now being in a position to sign a £100k+ a year NRL centre.

Clubs will earn these allowances (And the selections of the elite players will be completely spurious and designed to help certain clubs, such as Joel Tomkins being named in this years list) but there is nothing stopping them spending the money on NRL players. You earn the max cap exemption of £100k for having two English players in the list, according to what I've read in the statement. 2? It's pathetic. It's not like clubs can even afford the increases. We can't as a prime example and I'd be disappointed if we used them as all it would do is add to the financial losses we make.

I'm not going to bag the RFL yet until I see what they put in place and I totally understand it.

I still think home grown players salary should only count as 50/60% on the cap. That would encourage teams to invest in youth, we would keep our best young players in super league.

I also think it would free up cap space to bring quality nrl players to super league instead of over hill Aussies looking for a pay day.

I'd also go down the Aussie route abd say we will only pick players from super league for England.

What have you heard?

Whatever justifications are given, whatever excuses are made, whatever benefits to the game are alleged, this is a move by the RL 100% purely and simply to cave in to Wigan's demands to be allowed to bring in an antipodean centre next season instead of being forced to promote some of their homegrown talent there instead, completely in opposition to the supposed reason for it happening. It will ultimately benefit only the 3 or 4 richest and most successful clubs in the game (who, by very definition, are the richest and most successful clubs and so need no extra benefit at all), making an utter mockery of the whole concept of having a salary cap in the first place. It will force every other club who cannot afford the salary cap as it stands already to face either bankruptcy, or eternal mediocrity and uncompetitiveness (which will ultimately lead to the same thing with ever more disinterested supporters staying at home with their cash to watch Scum Utd. on telly instead). It cannot and will not prevent the talent drain from a league that simply does not have the financial resources to be able to remotely compete with the other markets for that talent.

These are all facts. Story, end of.

Other clubs may eventually benefit too, British RL may even benefit [ivery slightly[/i in the very short term as well (although it's hard to argue that point given that it is basically just a blank cheque for clubs to be able to go and sign a slightly better class of antipodean in future, ignoring home grown talent a la Wigan's current centre situation instead), but [ithe only reason this has happened[/i is to give in to pressure to be allowed to cheat their way back to competitiveness from the biggest and noisiest club in the game. It sickens me frankly and makes me angrier and angrier the more I think about it.

The salary cap rules are a matter for the clubs not the RFL so presumably a majority voted at their meeting to push this through. Deciding it is an RFL conspiracy is wacko.

I get the angst about this deal because its Wigan, but thank god the RFL have finally allowed clubs to make a stand financially. Tomkins - like it or not - is potentially a household name, and its hugely important that RL keeps him for as long as possible. I have no problem at all with a line being drawn in the sand with respect to RU poaching. Players going to the NRL is different - they are still eligible for England. Gareth Ellis leaving Leeds for wests is a billion miles from him joining an RU side.

I wonder how the other Wigan lads feel about tomkins being paid so much?

I've got a little feeling it's not gone down well

I made a point that I wouldlike a scheme similar to this but the RFL pay the wages over and above the cap, someone then pointed out that it would be difficult because you would not know which players were in or out each year.

Wigan have paid the max already, to keep tomkins, but lets say next year tomkins is the only Wigan player in the ETS/knights, how will wigan be able to stick to the wages if there is not enough players to cover the nessasary allowances. Or will it be a case of current contracts will be honored. Ie once your team reaches the maximum players needed to earn the extra 100k, if you don't have the players in the squad the following year you will not have to offer reduced contracts.

That's the problem though isn't it, we'll never attract the top quality Australian NRL players whilst they still have an opportunity to play 'rep footy' because the aussies won't pick them, that leaves the players that are no longer playing for their country because they are too old or have 'issues'. Then we have the non Australian NRL players from the likes of New Zealand, PNG etc, then it comes down to how we can compete against the NRL clubs not just in terms of money but the level of competition and the lifestyle they can offer.

Looking at that New Zealand side that played against England and how many of them are better than the current non-aussie imports we already have?

If we want to attract the best Australian players to our league we need two or three key things to happen, 1) The ARL needs to relax their restrictions on non picking non NRL based players for the Australian National Side, 2) We need to be able to compete on a level financial playing field as the NRL, and to some extent 3) We need to prove we can offer a competitive club competition on a similar level to that of the NRL.

The problem is non of those things are going to happen anytime soon, and so we come back to needing to focus on keeping our best players in our competition OR producing a larger volume of better young players which is the real trick.

I'm all for trying to keep the likes of Sam T and our own fantastic young & older players in the game but we need to be very very careful that any amendments & new rules put into place are strictly for that purpose and are not full of loopholes to be exploited as has been suggested here.

Not really; the effect is very similar, the only difference is in respect of the international game

tony, you say "If we want to attract the best Australian players to our league....".

Thats a very big "if" for me. I'd prefer us to concentrate developing our own players as a priority.

I see the NRL as a necessary evil though, we need to grow the international game in order to get more interest in the sport as a whole, to then in turn get interest in Super League. To do that we need to start beating the Aussies + Kiwis on a regular basis.

If someone like Tomkins went to the NRL, I'd be gutted as a Wigan fan, but understand that he wants to test himself on another level to that of Super League. I could guarantee that he'd still be the poster boy for England though. And unfortunately trying to flog Super League to non-RL followers is going to be a struggle, doing it with England though is another matter, look at RU. Domestically the games still a bit of a mess, doing no better than SL, however Internationally they make so much money, get so much coverage and have so many followers.

It's all about the international game.

It certainly is, but sadly the majority of fans (at all clubs) can't or won't see it, they are far too club centric.

After my brother in laws funeral a few years ago I got into a discussion with some fans about International RL and asked them which would they rather have, their team win the double or England/Gb win the RL World Cup? Everyone of them chose the former.

A friend of mine (Wigan fan) was having a go at the half empty Wembley Stadium for the double header. When I asked him if he had been, the answer was no as he'd been at Anfield watching the 0 - 0 draw with Swansea.

Somehow we need to change this mentality.

Hence the need for Catalan, and Crusaders. I'm gutted Crusaders didn't work, there needs to be more of a Rugby League presence in Wales, hopefully this 4 nations will get the ball rolling a bit more.

Next round of licensing, I'd also look at getting a 2nd French side in. Catalans have been an unreserved success, not that just needs building on, get a good french rival in and look to grow the game even more. We need strong European rivals to help England, strong mid season games that matter (exiles).

Go easy with the expansion unless there is real money behind it. Catalans are still dogged with rumours about their financial strength and it's only 12 months since there were rumours of them going out of business.

The salary cap ammendments are just the RFL bowing to Wigan's pressure. Wigan have always and still are anti-cap, because they know it's easier to win trophies if you spend more than anyone else is willing to. A level playing field isn't how they want things to be. The ammendments are poorly thought out and will not necessarily be spent on English players.

Another thing I don't understand about these cap rules are what it means if the elite players list changes. Lets imagine all the Elite level Wigan players suddenly play poorly and are left off the list. What happens then when Wigan are unable to comply with the cap rules? Do they get a exemption due to 'existing contracts' like they always used to get or do the exemptions last for the length of the player's contract?

Saints have been spending more than Wigan for the last three or four years due to the ten year rule.



It will be done on season by season basis, so if there are no players in the Elite or Knights squad next year (2012) the club will lose £100K of their allowance for the next (2013) season, just as they would if their 10 year player retires and they don't have another to take his place.

There will always be players coming off contract at the end of a year.Fielden, Tommy L and Finch at the end of 2012.

Where did you hear this? They are one of the most well supported clubs in the league, have have just build a new stand and undoubtedly spend to the cap limit judging by their squad. I would be very surprised if they are struggling to be honest.

I have been saying for a while now that I believe the next expansion should be in the south of France, all the signs are pointing to it. Catalans should be the blueprint for it, and the attendance for the France-England game clearly shows that their is a market for it. A long term plan should be put in place in order to eventually create a French Super League.

Sadly the RFL seem far too inept to bring that to reality, despite how much it would improve the international game.

There are many reasons why our international game isn't as widely popular as RU, not least because of the amount of countries that compete and do so on a similar, or should I say a more competitive level, than play international RL.

Take the recent RU world cup for example, there were several teams very capable of reaching and/or winning the final with several others offering challenging games in the earlier rounds. The home nations + france and italy compete annually in a very competitive six nations tournament and then there are the various friendlies and tours played each season. We get a mid-season friendly and either the four nations or the world cup at the end of the season, both of which ourselves, the Kiwis and Australians don't even need to go through qualification for.

In addition is the fact that we have had to switch from supporting Great Britain (& Ireland) then England, and back, and then back again from tournament to tournament.

Then you have the fact that the game has for all intents and purposes been taken over by Sky and has therefore fell largely off the radar for casual terrestrial viewers, even with the odd international game being covered by the BBC and its mediocre coverage of the club game.

The club over country mentality is a sad but unsurprising consequence, not aided by the poor performances of the national teams that had reached a point where many fans have expected to be beaten by both Aus and NZ.

I think this is a big issue. I read somewhere yesterday that 1.2 million watched the England -v- Australia game on the BBC; 620,000 watched the England -v- NZ game the following week. What a lot of viewers were lost by the game showing on Sky.

But, and I know it's a great big massive but, if we beat the Aussies on Saturday then it may be that the BBC will be more interested in showing our games in the future and will compete more enthusiastically for the rights to do so?

Seems I was right about the real reasons for the cap increase.

[url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/rugby_league/3940124/Anthony-Gelling-joins-Wigan.htmlWigan sign NRL player sacked for defecating in hotel[/url

Give over, they'll be paying that guy in washers.