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?

Man City have a world-class academy *and* bought rapid success.

Which part do you agree with?

That marketing a sport is a heck of lot easier with star players. (It tends to market itself in fact - for a brief period in the 90s RL probably peaked in terms of media interest with the likes of Martin Offiah) Paid-for marketing is ultimately a trivial contribution to our profile. Every paper is currently full of RU stories (and of course football is on a different planet in that respect). The RFU didn't pay for the those stories. Every time someone writes about Tomkins mucking about with Wiggins, or for that matter, even when we read about off-field 'scandals' concerning some player or other, it raises the profile of RL. Prats, egotists, and 'saints' like Johnny Wilkinson are all good value in the own way, but without individual stars (or villains) to write and broadcast about, it's a uphill battle to get coverage just because the sport is a good one. That's the world we live in, like it or not.

And that James Roby is nowhere near as marketable as Sam Tomkins.

James Roby is easily as marketable as Sam Tomkins. Hell Ryan Bailey is as easily marketable as Sam Tomkins.

Why are we pretending like Tomkins is the reincarnation of George Best? When did he start exuding all this charisma because it seems to have passed me by.

And yet the crowds are bigger now, the WC broke records, the TV deal is the best ever.......

Not sure how other teams are doing but Hull KR have sold more tickets for their opener against Leeds than they did for any game last season.

What a mess.

Bailey's marketable - pantomine villains have always been good value. Roby's a good player, but not box-office like Tomkins. With a few saintly (lower case 's') exceptions you can measure marketability by how much opposition fans hate someone.

Are you happy with the sport's profile?

That’s how Tomkins was marketed, as an excitement machine, but he isn’t the most personable of people. I wouldn’t bother watching an interview with him, he doesn’t attract attention. He has a skill, it was picked, it was highlighted and marketed. Its nonsense to say we couldn’t do exactly the same with Hardaker or certainly Watkins. Bailey is the pantomime villain him and Delany knocking heads and taking names. Roby is a captain, a workhorse, leads by example. Easy things to market.

Crabtree massive long haired strong man with famous genes. Burrow, David taking on 17 goliaths every week. LMS cheeky cockney making his way in a world of gruff northerners.

You don’t have to pass Billy Eves muster to be a good player or easily marketable.

And this is why folks we need a salary cap.

At the moment I am, when compared to recent seasons, but how about giving the season a chance to bed in, it's not even kicked off yet.

I forgot to mention the new dedicated RL show on 5 Live too in my previous post. A first for national radio and not to be sniffed at if we're talking about the sport's profile.