https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/50319010

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/50319010

For me, it's about two things -

1. Should SL be able to attract top, marketable talents like SBW?

2. Should those top talents be able to earn their worth by playing in SL?

To me, the answer to both is yes.

I've no issue with a salary cap of sorts, but this salary cap is not the right one. It's two low, it's too flawed, it doesn't encourage standards to rise and it hasn't been successful in delivering on the two most oft-cited justifications for it - to level the playing field (there are still only four names on the trophy) and to encourage financial security.

Personally, I'd move to an FFP style system where the salary cap is linked to a percentage of club turnover. A hard cap is too restrictive, it makes it harder for clubs to attract (or keep) talent that they could overwise afford, it imposes real-terms pay cuts on the players and it sets a base standard (and a base cost of competing) that people object to seeing increased because it would increase their personal cost. An FFP model (say 60% of club turnover), would put a bigger emphasis on clubs to grow off the field if they want to compete on it.

He wants it lifting because Toronto have been swamped with enquiries from NRL players agents.

Of course it needs lifting. This is why the standard of SL is so woeful. The top clubs - St Helens, Leeds, Wigan and Catalans are being held back by all the other clubs who dont want these clubs spending more on players because its "unfair". Players are now earning far less than they did 15 years ago in real money terms. But hey, the cap must be working because Salford made the grand final

Its a joke.

There you go then.

Although the cap should have been increasing year on year since it's inception, with the marque player rule, there is nothing to prevent clubs signing a couple of super stars, just as Toronto have done with SBW and with the marque player rule in place, does there really need to be a fundamental change in the cap ?

It's clear why Noble wants a change, to benefit the club that he is currently involved with.
However, maybe the issue with Toronto, is that they are offering contracts which are OTT and therefore need additional cap space to allow them to bring in more players.
Part of having the cap is to "encourage" clubs to manage their squad intake and as we are some way behind NRL and Union, it almost doesn't matter how much the cap is increased, as we will still be in exactly the same position.

It's important to remember why the cap was put in place, to prevent clubs (like Toronto, Wigan, Widnes) from bankrupting the sport

I don't think the cap should be lifted. You've got your marquee exemptions for any big names you want to bring in.
How about we try and actually grow the sport in this country instead? Why not offer incentives for bringing players through your academy instead? And I mean far more attractive incentives than what we already have.

I don't want teams throwing money around when most clubs are only sustainable thanks to debts being underwritten by benefactors. That is not a healthy long term strategy for the sport. Any top NRL talent are here for nothing but money and once that dries up they will go back home and we will be left with nothing in their place.

As with any sport players go where the money is and why shouldn't they?

Absolutely agree and although Toronto are still trying to generate interest, after all they are playing a new sport, in a new city, what are they actually doing to begin to create their own stars of the future ?
After all, this is what would make them sustainable in the longer term.

That wasn't really my point. Of course they will follow the money. But you need a flow of new talent as well otherwise the sport will become unsustainable. Getting rid of the salary cap could lead to our junior talent missing out because clubs would just spend money on an already established player instead.

For me the code has been in dire need of a circuit-breaker to drag it up and out of the ever decreasing circle of poverty its in. Toronto are a risk, but to me one the game has to take if it doesn't want to end up a semi-pro feeder for union and NRL.

Exactly. We are bringing the standard down to the levels of those who cant spend the cap just to make it fair on them

You need to give it some time. A club in existence for 3 years can not be expected to start producing players its developed itself.



The problem I have with this argument is other than Wigan from what I see the rest of Super League haven't exactly been great at producing top quality talent.

You cant play players just for the sake of it. The sport in this country isn't producing good enough players period.

I would assume the quality of coaching in Australia compared to over here is night and day and Rugby Union in the UK likely has better levels of coaching than what we are getting in Rugby League as the quality of player is lacking.

Would changes in the cap really make a difference and see players at Junior levels not given chances to progress to 1st grade? I'm skeptical that's true. If players are good enough they will make it, a coach doesn't leave out a better player simply because he is young and English.

Simply? The game's too boring to be able to provide those incentives. It needs to be in the spotlight more, then it just might begin to attract the TV deals and sponsorship that could actually deliver what you want to see happen (incidentally, I applaud those aims but the game can't afford the quality of player development needed). Big names = big interest. Celebrity factor I know but you only need to look at the world of entertainment (you know, that sphere we're failing to compete in) to see what stimulates the interest of the crowd.
Personally, the easiest way forward would be to maintain the 2 marquees but remove their entire salaries from the cap. That way the clubs with money to burn could target any player they so wished and - importantly - install them into a squad not weakened by having to cut back elsewhere. And raising the level of interest in the game is the best way to ensure more kids want to play it. IMO, of course.

We should follow the EFL of association football model under the SCMP. Wealthy benefactors are allowed to put money in, that wages can be spent against as a percentage, as long as it is a donation rather than a loan, so it goes on the companies top line and tax is paid on it if the team makes a profit.

Couple of young lads called Senior, oh Matty English, John Luke Kirby plus others all played for a very injury struck Huddersfield team.

So it’s not just Wigan mate...

Wigan were =#FF0000£1.5 Million in the Red for last season IIRC via press reportings. How does this "Big Club" then intend to spend more ?

Edit. They also suffered a fall in average attendance.

Evidence that players now earn less than 15 years ago in real terms please ?

The cost of living has doubled since the salary cap was introduced. Shopping that costs £10 now, cost £5 back then. Has the salary cap doubled in that time? No. It was £1.8m 15 years ago and has only in the past couple of years been increased by £100k. You can argue about the marquee rule or home trained dispensation but that wont affect the other 20 odd players in the first team squad.

So yes, players these days earn way way more in real terms than 15 years ago

The salary cap was only a couple of hundred thousand lower in 2001. Obviously inflation has eaten into wages since then so in real terms players do earn less now than then.

However I don’t have much of a problem with that. I’d love to pay our players 2,3,4 times what they’re getting now but the finances of the game don’t support it. So in general I’m in favour of suppressing player wages but only so that that money can be spent on Club infrastructure, commercial, marketing, community etc etc so that clubs grow. Then as clubs grow they can steadily pay players more and more. Which is why I’d introduce a 50% of revenue rule for the cap.

We need a sustainable, yet more importantly, competitive league from top to bottom. The salary cap has helped certain clubs stay effective as compared to before the cap was in place. This is a good thing for the sport, but ultimately it has to be judged on results, and the fact that the same old clubs win the GF every year means that something's not working. Fair play to them of course, and a handful of clubs are starting to knock on the door in Warrington, Cas, Hull, and even Salford. Scrapping the cap or increasing it is probably not the best thing for the sport in the northern hemisphere as it would only benefit a handful of clubs. The rest would fade into obscurity. While some would say, so be it, as a product SL with only a handful of competitive clubs is not an attractive proposition for fans, investors, or indeed marquee players of the future. Whether people like it or not, dragging-up the teams that are struggling to compete, and shortening the gap between the top of the championship and SL has to keep happening for the sport to get to the point where money rolls in, and players actually want to play in SL. That's when the cap increases need to be discussed. What we need now is maybe a rethink of how it works to not handicap clubs with an excess of cash, but help clubs with less money remain competitive.

Yes they should be given some time but then how long must pass before they make a start? This massive salary could have been used to start it.

I still go for a 50% rise in increments of 10% over the next 5 years *inc 2020 season* , this would potentially give players inflation busting pay rises for 5 years & help bridge the gap, of course being a cap for an entire team means some would & some wouldn't benefit based on perceived value to the club involved.

Personally I have suffered from a government set pay freeze over 5 years while MP's awarded themselves 12% pay rises & that on 1/5 or less of top SL players & at least 1/3 of many so it is hard to feel sorry for someone on £1.5K - £4K per week.

Does this mean I don't think players should be paid more, no,.more that to allow it to be sustainable & for clubs to prepare their finances & adapt, the increases should be stepped, maybe a few SL & Championship Clubs would struggle to adapt & keep pace even then.

This is the same Brian Noble who was part of the furniture at Bradford, a once-great club who folded from the top flight due to financial issues - even with a salary cap. The mind boggles.

I agree, it would be great if we can start to throw the money around to attract these superstars and compete with the NRL - but our clubs just arent financially able to do this sustainably, which means we'd be at the whim of billionaires who will inevitably get bored when they dont get an instant title / win (ala Koukash). Removing the salary cap is a problem; not because it will be an uneven playing field for the 'poorer clubs' such as Salford, Wakey, etc but it will be a problem in that it will lead to clubs over-extending themselves and collapsing. The game cant afford another Bradford Bulls level disappearance from the top flight.

Right now it's just a race to the bottom.

I agree which is why I think a finite cap and a 50% revenue cap combined are a good way to go. It limits the amount the “rich clubs” can spend but also incentivises the poorer clubs to increase their revenue. Then when you’re at a more even financial playing field you can increase or even do away with the finite cap.