Rugby Union and NRL have a far higher cap than we could ever offord so increasing cap only means we are paying more money for the same pool of talent.The only people that like that idea are players for obvious reasons, and Chairman who want to buy success by pouching the best talent from other super league clubs.

Thats it in a nut shell please close thread

If we want to improve the numbers of players in RL, then you are looking at grassroots expansion to allow Cornish teenagers the option of playing for fun, amateur level. Got nothing to do with the cap.

You are also looking at a wider Geographical spread of pro and semi pro RL clubs across the nation.

If you are simply talking about spending more money on the same players we already have then you are talking about increasing the cap.


Also when Saints lost Eastmond and Graham it was not for more money.

Eastmond was offered the same money as Union offered. But Union offered more exposure and an international scene that Saints could not.
The NRL offered Graham a lifestyle and competition that Saints could not. Again he was offered the same money by Saints.

We need a wider base of players so that if we lose a Graham, then there is another Graham already a rung below ready to step up and take that spot.

I'm not a fan of the cap, but I am a fan of clubs spending within their means.

Imagine if you put a breakeven cap in place, suddenly clubs have to start looking at the bottom line rather than speculation on certain players.

I don't think either that many youngsters would ever think the exact thought "hmm, not interested in that because there's a salary cap".

The point is a general one, that a sport with a higher profile will find it easier to attract young players. I don't need 'evidence' to make that assertion, because the opposite of that point would be so ridiculous as to not be worth arguing with.

I assert that the current cap is a barrier to raising the sport's profile (please note, that does not imply that I think raising the cap is by itself anything like sufficient to fix all the problems). I think one could rationally disagree with me there - I'd say you were wrong, but would listen respectfully to your reasons.

Every single 'cap' debate seems to rapidly end up with the pro-cap brigade mischaracterising the rest of us as wanting no salary controls whatsoever. Very few people actually argue for that. For example, I see merit in no upper total cap (other than what you can afford naturally) but very tight limits on the number you can pay more than, say 50k, e.g. Just 13. That would open up different strategies for success - the strength of your 'second tier' would be massively important to get through a season successfully.

No doubt my scheme is full of flaws, but that's not really the point, I'm sure there are much better ideas, but the current situation is ridiculous and my interest in the game is waning because I enjoy watching the best.

And by the way, I played amateur for 15 years and have watched Wigan for 35.

I am sorry, but can anyone name one benefit if the cap were to be increased? I can think of 10 disadvantages. But not one benefit. If anything, I would lower the cap.

As has been said, money isn't the reason necessarily players are leaving, lowering the cap would start to make it a reason so do t do that!

Raising the cap would allow more average ageing Aussies over paraded as "marquee" signings.

Allowing clubs 1 marquee exemption will lead to players demanding over the top salaries when they know a club hasn't filled that quota - how quickly before we see a dire player paraded as marquee just because they're free on the cap? There aren't enough "marquees" in the game for every club in super league to have one.

Reward clubs for home grown players. Reward them more for home grown players who go on to play for England/ knights. Reward english players for making the world XIII by making them exempt for any club in England (and thus can demand the salary they are worth in england, whether that be at their home town club or elsewhere) - the salary cap can then becomes less populatedas it's only for bringing the best British talent into clubs and the best from abroad, bigger share for everyone, players stay cos they can get more money elsewhere

Any club in administration is refused entry to super league for the new company.

Genuine question (because I know people have different views), do you think the rapid rise of Man City over the last few years is a good or bad thing for football in the UK?

I think I know what you are getting at would it not be great if we can find a lot of rich Arab's to come and buy our clubs, and buy who they want to with no cap to worry about,

but to work we would need more then one it would not happen but we can dream

Bang on, particularly this part.

This assumes that the Cap is at the ‘goldilocks’ number, not too high, not too low, but just right. Im not sure why we would assume this figure is exactly right.

Bollocks. Sorry but that is nonsense. There are only going to be 12 Super League clubs, there are comfortably more than 12 players in Rugby League who could realistically be ‘marquee’, Hell there is more than 12 in SL who could be ‘marquee’.

The SC can’t achieve that. There should be rewards for home-grown players and for british squads, but the SC isn’t the place to do it. It would make british players more expensive, concentrate them at fewer clubs and entrench the haves and have-nots. Lowering the cap for overseas players also doesn’t guarantee we will have fewer, it leaves us with the very real possibility we have the same number of overseas players, they are just of inferior quality.

The SC is supposed to spread talent, reduce wage inflation, keep clubs solvent, and is a levelling measure. It doesn’t do all these, it cant do all these. Lets have 4 different measures to address 4 different problems.


Why would anyone then buy a club which is in administration?

Not exactly, and of course we're in a completely different universe in terms of the numbers, but what I'm getting at is the question asked - about naming a single benefit of a higher cap ( though of course strictly I'm talking about cap reform rather just a flat increase )

One of the things that the cap is doing, for example, is frustrating what Koukash seemingly would like to achieve, which is to RAPIDLY bring Salford to the top table (in every sense of the phrase) - just as City were quickly transformed. Koukash (I think) believes that with money and star players he can quickly transform Salford, including making a massive impact on the size of their fan-base. I applaud the man. Huge numbers of know-it-alls assert that he has no clue, that such a plan will lead to disaster, "look what happened to club x, y, z, etc." and that the only sensible course of action is a long, slow and patient build up.

Maybe, but people like Koukash want to act quickly and expect quick results. Good luck to the man I say. Naysayers can lecture him all they like about doing it more slowly, or 'investing in the sport' (rather than one club) but he probably won't (and shouldn't) give a t**s what these armchair businessmen (me included) think.

I absolutely agree that it makes sense to do what we can to have mechanisms to prevent owners bankrupting clubs, but there simply has to be a smarter way than simply blocking money out of the game. In Koukash we have a bloke who has money ready* to bring superstar players to the North West of England and SL. That is a GOOD THING. Surely we're smart enough to find a way to let him do it. It's not my club, but I want to want to watch the best.

( *For those who insist that Koukash is all hot-air, I think you're wrong, but even if you're right, it doesn't matter, it's not about Koukash per-se, but about deliberately blocking money out of the game as a matter of policy).

If we increased the cap we could also spend more money on bringing in better players, and keeping some of those we are losing.

Well put. Precisely.

The cap is realistically going up anyway, in a sensible way.
Homegrown players (ie the ones we want to keep) will count as only £ 100k from next year, so clubs with a good youth setup could easily spend over 2 million.
Theres no point in upping the cap generally as it'll just get spent on players that will hold development of our future stars back.
The good Dr says he's commited to Salford, let him plow millions into a world class academy at Salford and grow a world class side. Or does he just want to buy instant success? Thats how you make a good team, not how you make a great club.

I wouldn’t just up the cap generally, because whilst it might somewhat mitigate the negative effects of the cap, it doesn’t solve the problems we need to solve. I think we need to look again at what we are trying to achieve and the ways we can achieve those things.

There is no necessity for us to have a cap at all, if we have measures to spread talent, to slow wage inflation, to help clubs stay solvent, and to level the playing field.

Its a difficult issue.
1) we want more competative games, so dont let the big teams spend way more than anyone else
2) we want a better international setup, so encourage clubs to promote youth over imports
3) we want financial stable clubs, so dont let clubs spend more than they can afford.
4) we dont want to lose our best players to RU or the NRL, so pay them enough to at least be competative

2 of those point to having some sort of a cap, 1 to being able to pay top homegrown talent more, 1 to a quota system.

So the system we have now addresses all of them, to a degree. What would be a better system

The cap in 1996 when Superleague first started was £1.600.000.00! In today's money that's £2.543.840.00! A least raise it to match inflation! I believe at least six clubs could afford a cap rise, that will be half the league next year. So you would have six strong teams full of superstars that would bring more attention to Superleague, and maybe just maybe sky will put us back In the Saturday night slot rather than Thursdays (I wonder why they did that?).

People may say half the league would be a lot stronger than the other half, there would be no competition, but thats how things are now. Only four teams have ever won Superleague! so for the RFL to say "the cap is there to increase competition" there talking rubbish! Only 6 teams can really compete in Superleague and out of that six only four can win Superleague! How competitive is that!
Thats why Leeds,Wigan, and saints owner don't want change! Because that could lead to them being less likely to winning anything.

I don’t think we are spreading talent, I think the new rules in fact will do the opposite. Big clubs will hoover the best young talent up, be able to pay them more, have less count on the cap and be able to spend more bringing in better players. The SC as it is/will be, is doing the opposite of what we want.

Theres numerous different options to go to, squad make up, a points system, drafts, etc etc, which one is best would depend on how we were addressing the other issues in the game, they would need to complement each other.

I wonder if you'd have that attitude if the good Dr wasnt around? What would you do if Salford were allowed to spend that? the same players are availiable, its not like you can instantly grow some more.
the Dr is a good thing for RL, he needs to show his commitment and build Salford a worldclass academy. With the potential talent pool he has on his doorstep in Manchester, he could really build something there, it would take time and alot of investment, but it can be done.

Super League needs to solve the huge problem of possessing no star players with world class abilities and personalities to match now that Sam Tomkins has done a runner. It's a tough enough assignment marketing the sport, but it's virtually impossible without any star players to market.

And before anyone jumps in and says that's not true... we've got loads of star players, blah, blah, blah... the likes of Danny Brough, Kevin Sinfield, James Roby or anyone else do not qualify on any level.

When are you gonna run along back to a forum of your preferred code? RUFans would be better for you than endless trolling on here surely?

Kris Radlinski on BBC Radio Manchester commented last night on the lack of talent and depth in Super League opining it was so poor that even himself at the age of 37 would still be able to cut it in Super League after a few months of fitness training.

But would he play for free?

If he was prepared to forgo the fitness training he could always cover the odd shift for Richie Mathers.

Troll or not, what part of what he said did you disagree with?