Did you enjoy watching Melbourne Storm as well?

I too would like to think that all sides adhere to the cap and that there's no funny business used using image rights or tax free payments via a non dom status and all that but we live in the real world and should expect administrators to try and find an edge to win, the players do. We tried it ourselves but came unstuck. I suspect if you're wealthy enough you'll find a way, people have been getting around paying tax a lot longer than the salary cap has been around and I suspect HMRC are more clued up than Nigel Wood & Co.

Warrington have 14 full test players in their squad as well as Brett Hodgson and Michael Monaghan. I'd be very interested to see how they that lot plus all their average earners and kids under the cap limit if they aren't finding a way to pay certain players more that doesn't show on the live cap.

Of course I enjoyed watching Storm, they had a cracking team. The scale of RL in Aus has to be witnessed to be believed, it is not the plaything of a rich local businessman. More money in sport = more corruption.

I would reckon most, if not all, clubs breach payment/taxation rules to some degree. I personally have experience of a chairman coming into the changing rooms, on a number of occasions, & putting a thousand pounds on the table & saying it's yours if you win the next 3 games, or something similar.

Is the answer not just to do away with the cap in its current form and look at a more transparent and flexible option like the points system muted in Aus?

Out of the mouths of tots...

Let me tell you what I would do, if I was a club owner or CEO who wanted to sign superstar player Mark Key but had little room under the cap.

Firstly, I would approach all my legit business contacts - and if necessary pay a specialist PR agent to approach HIS contacts - to see if a legit business was interested in paying for the player's image rights for a genuine deal. Something along the lines of Scully and Gillette or Harris and Tissot or Publico, or on a smaller scale with a local business. (On an unrelated note, it did strike me as interesting that Sam Burgess was revealed as the new face of Lexus Bradford - a business with no obvious connection with the Bulls - the day before the Bulls announced his new contract with us...). Note that we are talking genuine deals for a player promoting a business' products or services. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

If such a deal was done, then with my club hat on the club would then contract to pay the player the higher of:

a - the amount the player (or, realistically, his agent) needed to achieve the package he was looking for; or

b - the amount that would be sufficient to convince the salary cap auditor that there was a genuine playing contract in place.

Would I be able to sleep soundly in my bed, and admire myself in the mirror the following morning? I would be uneasy, but could PROBABLY live with myself on the basis that all the other buggers were doing the same or worse, and I was keeping people in jobs and my team successful. And I was not getting slagged off on my team's internet forum by näive fans who believed everyone conducted their affairs as honourably and with the integrity that they do their own.

Now let me tell you what I would NOT do - but I could not speak for all my fellow owners or CEOs here, just for myself.

I would NOT go have a chat with my mate, who owns a business with whom I have dealings. I would NOT suggest to him that he pays Mr Mark Key a couple of hundred thousand Aussie Dollars or so p.a., possibly from his overseas company that most folk are unaware of, into into a personal service company that we set up for the player in Grand Cayman or Bermuda or the like, in respect of "advisory and promotional services rendered by the company in respect of its employee Mr Mark Key".

Furthermore, recognising that Mr Key would not be expected to do a lot of work for his annual fee, I would certainly NOT suggest to my mate that, through one of my own companies, I would award one of HIS companies a contract that allowed him to make - for the sake of argument - a couple of hundred thousand Aussie dollars more than they might otherwise make. For no reason other than I was his pal and wanted to seem him do OK. No sir, I would definitely NOT do anything like that. Because I would be concerned that - whilst I had breached no rules, salary cap or otherwise, I had not acted in the spirit of the rules. I could not do such a thing. I would prefer to sleep at night, and recognise that the ugly fat balding ageing miserable sod (Eddivan, Dilligaf, Bullseye, Bully Boxer, MDF, Bulliac et all will confirm the description...) I see in the mirror every morning had at least retained his integrity. Since retaining my integrity would matter a great deal to me.

That is what I would do.

But I would be sure be fooking angry if I discovered some of my fellow owners had had no such scruples.

Thankfully, I would find that I had no evidence that they had done such a thing, and so would probably manage to avoid getting apoplectic.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, what I most definitely would NOT do would be pay the player (or his personal service company) offshore any money MYSELF. Because, quite apart from wishing to retain my integrity and honesty, I would not have got to where I was today by being totally fooking stupid.

You so often talk a load of age IMO, and have been pedalling this sort of argument for ages.

And, if you were the fan of a club with very substantial resources then you might well support such an approach. Same way as I am sure the fans of Chelsea and Man City et al are quite happy with that approach.

If, on the other hand, you were a fan of a club without access to such riches, you would be a fool to support that approach since it would mean the end of your club. You would either go bust trying to keep up with the rich obsessed owners, or you would fall by the wayside by being unable to keep up.

But, having said that, here you make a perfectly fair and reasonable point that is far from age.

IMO, if an objective of the salary cap is to prevent rich owners buying success, then IMO it is failing badly. A look at the table (with the wonderful exception of Cas) should be enough to prove that? And you can maybe see which moderately wealthy owners are already struggling to keep up?

Maybe we should abolish the cap and have a free for all? Then you would end up with probably Moran, Lenaghan and Davy running away with the competition. The generally prudent Hetherington/Caddick and McManus would try to keep up for a while but IMO would soon decide the stakes were too high and settle for being the next tier. The likes of Wilkinson and Hudgell would soon realise the stakes were beyond them and fold (in cards terms) and most of the rest would accept that SuperDuperLeague was beyond their means.

I am not trying to ridicule your argument though - far from it. Maybe you are right. Maybe we need to recognise that money WILL win out, and that the wealthiest clubs need to break away to form some wider international competition? After all, you can't buck the market forever.

I know one Super League club that was paying a centre £124k in 2008...

I dont buy the argument that it would 'force' clubs to spend more, some would choose to definitely, but the points system still limits the amount of success you can simply buy in. With a total set at a deliberate level it becomes impossible for clubs to bring in an entire squad of international top quality players. You simply wouldnt be able to fit them all under your limit. It would mean a club would be forced develop its own talent if only to stay under the cap, and it would reward them when they did, aswell as making them more valuable to their home club, but also less valuable to other clubs.

What it would mean is that SL clubs could be in the market for the very best overseas players. They would count heavily on the cap meaning compromises would be needed elsewhere + there would still be a quota meaning that you couldnt bring more in, simply better quality. Plus it would get around all the third-party restrictions. If Bradford want to approach one of their sponsors, and can convince them the pay SBW £200k on top of his wages then well done Bradford.

Restrictions on money arent the only way of keeping costs down, and they arent the only way of levelling the playing field.

Smokey, can you explain the "Points System" in basic terms to those who are not that familiar with it please?

Basically players are assigned a points value and clubs an aggregate amount of points they can exceed when their players points values are added together.

A good thing about it is you can set these points values at whatever rate you want.

Personally I would look at something along the lines of

Overseas player 70pts
international British players who came through another SL clubs academy 40pts
international british players who came through your academy/from the lower leagues 30 pts
non international british player who came through another SL clubs academy 25pts
non-international player who came through your academy/from the lower leagues 20pts

With a maximum of 800pts to build your squad. Now as a quick example by my calculation leeds are hitting about 860 points and would need to shed 60pts. It would be up to them how they did it, they could drop an overseas player or two british internationals who came through our academy, or Peacock/Senior (our two british internationals who came through other academies) and a squad player like Kirke.

But whilst putting this squad of 800 points together we could pay the players what they want. So an overseas player like Kylie Lueluai who is pretty average if we are honest, would become less attractive as he would cost as on the points total/cap as if we went out and got David Shillington who we could now compete for in terms of £££

Thanks for that. Clear and concise.

To be honest, it looks to me like a more sophisticated variant on the existing overseas quota/home-produced etc rules? You are using the points differentials to influence the types of players a club can sign - although in your example a club is penalised whenever one of its players gets an international call-up - unless the player retained his original points value from when he was signed?

Although I can see what you are trying to achieve, without a salary cap you would find the wealthiest clubs would sign the best players in each category, and the less wealthy ones the Kylies (or worse) of this world. Would you not? Only if you graded the points by player ability (if such were possible, since such categorisation would necessarily be subjective) would you even-out the talent across clubs?

Thinking quickly aloud, what would your views be on adopting your points system, and allowing a player to retain the points value he had on signing, but then adding to his value the inverse of the position his team finished in the previous season? Eg if his team finished first, add 14 points and if it finished last add one point? And add say 200 points to the total allowed? Even then, I guess all that would achieve is a winning side dropping off its least-good players and signing up everyone else's stars?

I'm trying to think of a way that a points system could help even up the competition without assigning subjective values. Without heading down some version of the "draft" route which I do not like because it penalises clubs that develop the best youngsters.

If you just let money rule, I really do fear you will create a very small elite of clubs and take away any real semblance of competition. Unless that small elite could join some elite international league yet to be created, I'd see that as the end of Sky's interest - and probably that of most of the fans too. Like we have seen happen already between SL and non-SL clubs. What do you think?

I would work it so that a player retained his original points value for the length of his contract, when a new one is signed his new value would be attributed to him. So a player like McShane at Leeds would currently cost 20pts on the cap, if he were to be capped by England in the 4nations at the end of the year, then he would retain that 20pt value up until the end of 2013 when his contract runs out, if he re-signs for Leeds his value would move up to 30pts, if he signed for another team it would go up to 40pts
I dont see it like that, I see the points value, which isnt subjective it is based on a players actual representative honours, would force clubs to balance their squads. I think it would be more balancing than the SC. You have a limit on the quality of player you can bring in, you need to have a mix between players brought in, and players bought through simply to stay under the cap.

As you say, the bigger teams will have the best players in each section. But also that would mean they need fewer in each section. It would leave Leeds in a position to say is Lee Smith worth 30pts? Is JJB worth 30pts? if not, if we could get better value from sticking with Watkins/BJB/Wilson on the wing then Lee Smith can go. He wouldnt be attractive to the likes of Saints, Wigan, Wire, at 40pts, but Wakefield have very few international players and as such points to spare. And Wakefield wont be bidding against Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Wire for his services so his cost isnt going to just rocket because there is no SC.

It would see more players stick with the club that brought them through because they would be more valuable than players they could bring in, and less valuable to other clubs as they would cost more than players in their own academy.

It would see us able to compete for the very best players in world rugby and it would level the playing field. Plus it is flexible, very transparent and impossible to fudge. We could tweak it as and when we needed to as well.

As I say, i dont see clubs signing up all the talent, i think that would be impossible, what i do think is that we can start looking at the SBW's, The GI's, the Haynes joining our league without the possibility buying success ala wigan in the 90's but with the opportunity to earn it.

Now if Leeds were to sign for instance Shillington, they would need to drop either Cross or Kylie, now im not arguing either of those are comparable to Shillington, but they would then be available to other clubs, and at a reduced cost because their options would be limited. So it would make the players available to lesser clubs of a better standard.

As for changing the points based on league position. Im loathed to reward the team finishing last for finishing last. I never like it when it becomes in a teams best interest to finish as low as possible, which if we were to award additional points as the inverse of the league table we would get. As soon as the play-offs became out of reach it rewards a team for finishing 14 rather than 9th. What i would do is look at awarding something like 10/20 extra points to the teams who previously finished out of the play-offs. Wouldnt be a massive advantage but could easily be the difference between being able to sign an also ran and being able to sign an international.

Seems on the face of it a sensible approach re retaining initial value for duration of contract. Anything less would hardly be fair?

A likely implication maybe would be clubs giving very long contracts, doubtless with pay revision clauses, to players they see as having big futures? Would Leeds have given Sinny and Burrow and Maguire 10-year deals to retain their 20-point values?? Would a player sign such? Would a contract that said "this contract is for ten years, but if you have not achieved international honours within 4 years then the club has the option of early termination" be classed as a contract for 4 years or 10?

I see your point about rewarding a team that finished last, and see your compromise solution. Maybe the inverse points only kick in when a player changes clubs or signs a new contract? Just off the top of my head.

I'm not initially convinced by your cost argument, but equally I've not had the chance to get my head round it properly. Let me have a better think about it, and the other points you make, when I have a bit more time - you've clearly given it a fair bit of thought, so it warrants adequate time for consideration. Something is niggling away saying there is potential in this as a concept, even if not necessarily precisely as in your scenario. Hmm.

We could easily put limits on the lengths of contracts. Plus most players expect a contract renegotiation anyway after international caps.

The big issue I see is a player like Diskin being counted the same as a player like Roby, but we can put limits on the length between caps i.e no caps for 4 years and a player becomes non-international, to stop player foregoing international caps to keep their total low, the coach can select them if they refuse they refuse but the points are still added. But I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

I like that idea. Is it been tested in Aus or just talked about?

Thanks for the input Adey & Smokey, extremely interesting. adopting Smokey's suggestion I could definitely see the position where myopic fans of clubs claim therir players have been/haven't been picked for a one-off international against PNG purely to make them less attractive/more attractive assets.

As regards 3rd party image rights. If it does exist I am amazed it is not more out in the open. When I & my more talented mates played everyone seemed to know who was on what at most clubs. I would be surprised that no jealous, aggrieved, desperate player hasn't spilled the beans. Or perhaps I am now too remote from the game.

It's pretty well structured without being over complicated. I'd look to add another category of players from other sports and rate them similar to own academy products as you can then take a chance trying to attract top class athletes, who may or may not adapt to RL, without too high a risk.

I like the idea, but the "successful" clubs would no doubt be against this coming in. We'd have the issue of clubs breaking the points cap as players were under contract prior to this coming in, so it would take time to settle down and become a level playing field.

The major drawback I see however is the earning potential of certain "mid-level" players who have played an international game every other year or so but are not regular international players.

Potentially you could have Lee Smith - who was shown as an example previously who has played international rugby. He is not playing to the heights of previous years so Leeds in this scenario may choose to not offer Lee a new contract.

This makes Lee available to all other clubs, but as stated, he's not at the top of his game and the wealthier clubs already have the current incumbents of the England international jerseys all under contract.

So, Lee becomes available to the mid-level SL teams. However, they all know that Lee would count as a "higher standard" player in the points mechanism, but, he's not worth the value of those so would cost more per point that someone who had not yet played international rugby for England (eg, Michael Platt).

The clubs may therefore be willing to take Lee onto their books, but for a salary much lower than his grade would suggest.

We may find a big drop off of the fringe international players to RU given that they could probably offer more money without making a massive investment along the lines of the Harris or Robinson signings of the past.

This method gives the elite players substantially more power (and money), possibly at the detriment of the middle and lower level players.

You may also see the rich clubs spending an absolute fortune on younger players such as John Bateman, who they can tie up on long term deals just before they become international players, so that they would be classed as non-international on the points system for 5 years before the next contract becomes live, at which point said player may or may not have become an international regular.

In all honesty, I doubt you would see too much change to the current table, which probably tells its own story about the current cap and the ways to "legally" increase it. The RL hot-beds of Saints/Wigan and Leeds will still see young players coming through at those clubs, so would allow them to still compete to a reasonable level.

Clubs without financial clout, such as Bradford, would need to heavily rely on junior development and hope to pick up cast-offs from the top level who turn around their careers and become top level players once again (which rarely happens).

I like the idea and you could announce a 5 year plan to phase it in.

year 1, players would start to accumulate their points band but only in year 5 would it come into affect. that way there would be no arguing over who was worth what points.

Quote ="debaser"I like that idea. Is it been tested in Aus or just talked about?'" I think it is being trialled in some of the lower leagues in Aus, im pretty sure around Newcastle. In Aus it goes by the pretty dramatic name of The Irvine Solution www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -u04i.html

Quote ="debaser"I like that idea. Is it been tested in Aus or just talked about?'" I think it is being trialled in some of the lower leagues in Aus, im pretty sure around Newcastle. In Aus it goes by the pretty dramatic name of The Irvine Solution www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -u04i.html

Its a great benefit for it that you can look at the type of players you want clubs to have, and reward them for doing so. As you say, we can look at bringing in players from union, but also we can encourage clubs to give more opportunity to players from developing nations as well.

The problem I see with this system is that surely players (and/or their clubs) would be reluctant to play for their country as they could effectively have to lose their jobs because they've become more 'expensive'. So a player like Sykes for example wouldn't be able to find a club who would even pay him minimum wage because his points value is so high. I'm not sure there's a better method than judging a player's worth by what a club is prepared to pay for him.

Off the top of my head, what about a rule that says you must release a player to another club if they offer you say double the value of his remaining contract as a transfer fee? So let's say for the sake of argument there was a Super League club called Wirrington and they had an international prop call Marley. Let's also say that Wirrington have found a way round the cap so although players of Marley's calibre generally earn in excess of £100k, the club only pay Marley £40k. Now when Marley has for example two years left on his contract they have to accept a transfer fee of £160k for him.

(Just for the record all these numbers are completely made up, and any resemblance to any player past or present is purely coincidental).

doesnt that just bias things in favour of clubs with rich backers even more as they'd have funds to pay the transfer fees and cherry pick the best players? how often are the smaller clubs going to be able to afford to pay a transfer fee?.

Strangely, Phil Clarke came up with an idea a year or two ago which I thought was interesting. If a club wanted to spend above the cap they could do so but had to compensate the other clubs at a rate of say - 5:1.

ie Wigan wanted to go £100k above the cap so had to pay £500k into the pot to be shared out to the other 13 clubs.

If everyone were totally happy that [iall[/i clubs were being honest and above board with the basic cap then I guess this kind of thing could be considered but, as it is, it just seems to be petty tinkering which isn't going to achieve very much. To bring in a very old cliche, moving the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.

I propose that all clubs found guilty of fiddling the salary cap should not get a licence next time. Only that way can we be sure the game is cleansed.