A thought that occurred to me last night...

What if a club were able to add £1 to it's SC for every £1 of Sky money it was willing to forgo? This would allow the rich clubs to increase their cap and buy better players while providing a larger pool of money to be distributed to the other clubs, somewhat offsetting the negative effects. It would also have the effect of increasing the net amount of money in the game.

There's probably any number of problems with that idea that I haven't thought of, mind.

Evidence or gtfo.

[url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/club/salford-city-reds/33495Here.[/url

Smokey, you're the stopped clock of RLFANS. Mostly wrong, but right twice a day.

very funny and sooo true

It's not far removed from the 'tax' system they had in ... ( I'm going to say US basketball, but I could be wrong on that - it was one of the big US sports anyway ). You could pay over the cap, but had to match every $1 excess with $1 paid to a fund which was distributed ( not sure if to other clubs, or to grassroots, or both ).

For me (repeating ad nauseum), I think there's only two things you should be trying to stop: clubs going bust, and clubs hogging all the talent. You can do both without a simple 'flat' cap. The first you address by rules about only spending what you can afford (though if a rich donor is prepared to give you money, you can spend it). The second you address with very tight limits on the number of players you can pay 'star' wages to. The point being that we should have a mechanism that would allow, say if Abramovich suddenly decided he was League fan, him to bring in Dan Carter ( and the veritable shed-load of great PR).

I've said many times, that I don't believe the "Wigan problem" pre-SL was due primarily to them having an outstanding 1st XIII, it was due to them sweeping up all the others too, on the bench and in the wider squad that were then kept away from the other teams. If Wigan in those days could only have 13 'stars', then the actual team put out on any one day (injuries, etc) would have been less dominant, and moreover, other clubs would have had access to the other players not in that list of 13.

It most likely won't happen and he has hardly been mentioned but I would like to see Shaun Edwards be given a chance, I think he would be available after That Six Nations too, he wasn't given a chance in league as a coach which is a shame and he would do a fantastic job even if it's until the end of the season. Salford have the money now so it's worth a shot.

But why does it have to be as simple as "raise the cap" or "lower the cap"? This completely restricts the debate to basically rich club vs poor club, when there are a ton of other good options...limited number outside the cap, etc, etc.

Yes, but in all cases, note how it's the group with the most money who control the contracts. The RFU and ECB are richer than the clubs and the counties. The RFL and FA are poorer than (at least many of) the clubs.

That seems like a reasonable enough idea.

I like the simplicity of the current system, but as most clubs can't afford an increase, some sort of compromise might be in order after so many years without a rise.

Well said



I get the impression that a few clubs could pay more than the salary cap but it is in all of the owners interest at the clubs that could do so to simply keep the current status quo. As things stand the top clubs stay at the top anyway, without them needing to do much or pump much money in, and the weaker clubs cant even spend enough to compete anyway. Koukash is just what the game needs to spice things up and smash the cosy old boys network of Lenegan, Hetherington, McManus and Moran. There is far more money in the game than there was 10 or 20 years ago and players are being paid far less in real terms. There is far more Sky money being given to each club now, attendances are greatly increased, ticket prices are up and yet we are constantly being told there is no money in the game and players wages are going down year on year. Something doesnt add up.