Good for bringing in high profile players and game awareness.
But where do young talent go becase if SBW played on one leg he would certainly keep out a young Canadian from getting into the team.
Why wasn't it put in there application for joining the rugby league that by year 3, 5, 7 etc there had to be x,y,z Canadians in the team.

Hhhhmmm, there is no RL club in SL or this country other than Toronto can pay millions to a single player & still want to do this more, dream on, onward to mass bankruptcy further down the line. However, if a mass sponsor was to fund the issue I am in favour, certainly there needs to be an increase but a warning needs to be understood, our so called top clubs operate on debt, to increase this to the wishes of one club ? Then so be it !

Before you advocate an increase in the cap, just how many clubs are maxing out the budget in relation to full cap spend plus 2 marque signings ?
The whole idea of the marque player rule is to allow clubs to entice superstars and for their salary not to count heavily against the cap.

So, how many ?

As for a race to the bottom, maybe it's up to the big 4/5 clubs in the comp to lead the way in enticing these elusive superstars.
The reality is that, even without any kind of cap, we would still be left offering over inflated contracts to players in the twilight of their careers.

Increase the spend all you like and nothing will actually change.

The top Australian players wont come over, as they will miss out on representative rugby and the same applies to any up and coming players so, who is it that you want to throw a heap of cash at ?

Correct.

When the 'big' clubs realise that the competition needs to pull-up and even out the playing field, will be the day that they can question the cap. The options as it stands is to scrap the cap entirely, which would result in a runaway league where only a few clubs compete. Have the cap as it is which helps add maybe two or three extra clubs to the mix but is still dominated by a few clubs. Or a third unknown option that allows well financed clubs to be less handicapped but enables 'smaller' clubs to be competitive. SL needs to be attractive to outside money. We wont get that by having a few clubs spending what they want to the detriment of everyone else, producing a boring unbalanced league. The system we currently have is not perfect, but with tweaking and time, is the only real way of keeping a competitive league. That helps secure the sport in the long term.

A competitive league isn't any good if the actual quality on display is average. The Championship in Football is a good example of this. Everyone can beat everyone but the actual quality of football is bang average.

I’m all for a competitive league but not if it means the top teams have to be dragged down to help the rest. Competitiveness should come from the rest making a step up. SL top sides are getting worse rather than the rest getting better and that does nothing to help the sport.

The player pool in Australia is huge. Not everyone plays rep football. There are plenty of quality players who are not quite good enough for Origin but are still very very good players.

Even if we was to include those who are good enough to play rep football at the end of the day money does matter.

I know that there are 100's of potential players over there but, we were talking about big name players on huge salaries and the question that I asked you was, how many clubs are currently using their full cap and 2 marque signings because, unless there is pressure from more than Toronto to increase their wage bill, we are just hypothesising on stuff and nonsense.

I havent seen Leeds, Wigan or Wire demanding any type of increase and quite frankly, if they are "happy" with the cap + extras, we should keep as we are, plus some annual inflation type increase.

The min point is that the "superstars" of the Aussie game will only come over for a retirement contract or when they have mis-behaved and cant get a gig at home.

There seems little point about wanting a Cooper Cronk or Tuivasa-Sheck type player to come over as it just wont happen.

The Premier league is so far ahead of the championship because of the vast wealth inequality between the leagues. In fact, even the premier league is skewed heavily in favour of the clubs with unlimited cash. They also have the problem that only about a quarter of the teams in that league have a chance at winning the title. That's not as big a problem for them because it boosts all the clubs in the league financially. Most of the teams have no hope of competing but they have other enticements such as European football and domestic competitions. Plus they are the countries number one sport.

The trouble with certain fans with your argument is that it's elitist nonsense and a catch-22 for you. Your teams already sit at the top end of the competition, but when top clubs such as Leeds or Wigan to name a couple over recent years have struggled. It's that the competition is degrading in standards somehow. When teams that have traditionally struggled pull themselves up to be competitive and challenge the 'top' clubs, instead of seeing that as a positive thing it's somehow because the general quality is now rubbish or we can't spend more when we can.

For SL to survive and move forward the league needs to be competitive. Nobody will invest into a sport with only four or five teams battering everyone else every week. That's why we're still struggling even now. These things take time. I'd rather watch a SL that throws together more competitive matches over watching a few clubs play champagne rugby over inferior opposition. While what we have now isn't perfect, the 'lower' teams are dragging themselves up and becoming more competitive. Not every match can be a SOO banger because these things take time. The marquee signings are a perfect solution, as it stands, to attract that bit of talent that's floating around.

That's not my argument. In a truly competitive competition like you see in the NRL there would be ebb and flow where one year a team could finish 12th and the next year finish 3rd.

Seeing the 'big clubs' be successful or struggle isn't the barometer of whether the competition is a quality product. I am simply judging the product on what I see on the pitch and to me the standards have declined.

Now of course the solution to that isn't simply about better quality from Australia as the game needs to produce a better homegrown quality of player but it would help.

A few years ago I would of said the top 4 or 5 in Superleague could match the top 4 or 5 in the NRL and it was further down the league where the huge gap in quality was but now I dont think that's the case.

The gap has become much much bigger between the two competitions top to bottom. Now of course it doesn't help that over here there that we dont have the same level of player trading. Our top players play for the big clubs and stay at the big clubs due to too many clubs not in a position or are not prepared to spend up to cap.

If we have a competition where far too many clubs cant even spend up to to the salary cap that do we have that begs the question how can the standards ever improve.

Simply raising or binning the cap wont sort the discrepancies you highlight. It will just lead to a two-tier competition that will drive half your fans away from the game. The NRL has a lot of advantages over SL. National sport, investment, better media coverage, huge investment into grass roots, a massive player pool, and a sensible cap to name a few. We can't compete with that. The rise of the NRL has taken time and a lot of changes since they were second-class to the UK.

For SL to improve all over the park, it needs time and careful management along with investment and growth. SL needs to be competitive regardless of how you view the standard. The overall competitiveness of all teams with each other will then improve the standard. The standard can't improve unless that imbalance is addressed. How do we balance that? With the cap.

I'd accept that the league is more competitive than it once was though I wouldn't say it's looking increasingly secure.

Seriously, when did any SL club bring a player over at the top of their game and not just seeing their career out - players who have mis-behaved or coming back from injury dont count ?
I think that you are just wishful thinking.
Of course when you go back to the 80's, we could plunder Union and steal some of their superstars but, that avenue is also a non runner.

It's all about the money and the level of sponsorship going into the NRL (and Union) utterly dwarfs RL in the UK and this isn't going to change anytime soon.

Even SBW, the "superstar" signing by Toronto, is an example of a player, albeit a very good one, coming to SL on a retirement contract and whilst it's right for the game to try and make as much from his conversion as they can, it is what it is and way over the odds as well

Other than the semi-pro bit, were already there.

Interesting thoughts. I'd agree to a certain extent about the competitiveness of SL, but we have Saints who cantered to two hubcaps and really ought to have won the treble in the past two years.
I suspect that the salary will start to work against them, in that the players who have reached regular first team standard over the last couple of years, will ask for an upgrade in monetary terms once contracts are up for renewal. It's either find a way to say yes, by reducing the cap elsewhere in the squad if your maxed out, or the lure of Australia beckons. Also, there's still only four clubs that have won SL in how many years? Yes, were finding different clubs making the GF in recent years, but the quality of our product is really suffering, with the recent GB tests highlighting the problem. It's a long, long time since the NRL was second class to the UK, and I cannot see us getting anywhere parity for another considerable length of time.

The salary cap is part of the problem with the quality of our product, and this is the reason that SL is more competitive. I cannot see an way forward where we have both.

With regard to the NRL competition, all the clubs receive a huge cash sum to/from the main sponsor, however they operate a salary cap, the difference being once a club reaches the top of the cap of look to be heading above the cap - the club in question has to off load high salary players if they do not want heavy penalties against them.
Whether right or wrong, here's the difference, the lower 3 clubs get first call on those players unless they leave & go abroad. This is the Australian way in order to stimulate the completion & lower clubs can rise, which happens.
Our top clubs would not stand for this & the top clubs, RFL & fans could not swallow this !
This country & clubs will never match money from USA & Canada, their business operations dwarf ours, next up is Ottawa, then New York, so stop dreaming, you cannot match them ! Only legislation can hope to regulate & control issues, the problem is to what extent ! ?????

It should absolutely be amended. FFP is the model to look at. The competition has been brought to it's knees quality wise and the only way players can earn as much as 20 years ago (ratio to living costs now) is if they are lucky enough (and good enough) to get an NRL gig.

It's a disgrace, no wonder the game is stale.

Fine as an answer - FFP rules type to apply, fine if an owner has cash to inject to offset allowed debt, but ultimately the club retains that debt created even if it's mitigated, accumulation over 3 seasons would still lead to clubs going bust as their is no league above super league with a tv injection of money available to wipe out debts as in your analogy championship to premier league.
In short all super league clubs would have to fall every time on a sugar daddy who did not want their money back, this is a tall ask times 12 clubs !!!!
Added to this is continuation of creditors wanting their money back, legal business rules apply in the UK, for all business to be paid within 1 month ! Continuation of debts unpaid can lead to your company being struck off registration to operate from the DTI - + all taxes must be paid first & kept up to date, these are legal issues that control debt ! Hence RFL rules of salary cap + right & proper person owning & running a club ( ability to ) I am not defending the RFL as they are not very good on the latter point, I am also not against raising salary cap but it has to be sustainable to the sport as a whole & not to a single or few select clubs, other wise, those few will only end up with each other !

As I stated earlier, it’s the football league model we should look at which is totally different to the ffp model

Who do you think would benefit the most [url=https://www.villagevoice.com/best-sausage-stuffers/from these quality sausage stuffers[/url and under the football league model?

Good point Mounsey, only those to benefit is clubs who can run with money in the millions, do you think any club in the UK could run with those figures - expenditure ?? Others than that pick any FFP model you want, it's still
' Allowed managed debt" which eventually catches up at pay back time. People don't seem to understand that point + businesses in this country, (owners) cannot match large American & Canadian companies !
Remember Ottawa are in next 2021 & new York on the horizon !!!

Absolutely. Let’s stop the big teams from spending money they can afford just so Wakefield can finish 8th

You can keep going over that point all you want but lets be honest for a minute how many clubs are heavily reliant on investors to be able to spend to the cap as it currently is in this country? There are only so many Morans and Ken Davys that you will come across that will continuously pour money into the club that they love and it will not last forever.

What happens when the likes of Davy stand down? Who do you think will be there that will be happy to lose a million pound a year to watch a team play in a stadium that is at 15% capacity every week? The rise in salary cap would probably be sustainable for 50% of the teams in super league as it stands, but again that is heavily reliant on the investors at the clubs.

Our game will never be on a level with the likes of football and the level of investment and interest that clubs get in that game, I look at it like this - Toronto are a one off - If you don`t believe that, just look at the level that the Aussies have been at over the past 10 years and the size of the game and yet the once in a generation players - Thurston, Slater, Lockyer earned a fraction of what SBW has been given by Toronto. Maybe there are a few other investors in North America that want to follow suit and throw crazy money at a pet project, similar to MK with Salford.

In a few years time, if it does evolve and if there are multiple teams with the same level of investment as Toronto, I would be more than happy for my club to go there separate ways and stick to playing the likes of Salford, Leigh and KR in a different league and let the likes of Saints join them in a super duper league - I do however wonder how long it would take the likes of Wigan to join us though? They have lost around 700k a year over the last few years with things as they stand, how long can those losses be sustained?

No point in banding facts about the place. Their minds are made up and wont be changed. Like a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum.

Name me the current sides of the 28 top level pro RL sides in the world who currently make a profit.
St Helens
Wigan
Warrington
Castleford
Salford
Leeds
Catalans
Wakefield
Toronto
Huddersfield
HKR
Hull FC
Melbourne
Brisbane
New Zealand
Canberra
Newcastle
North Queensland
Gold coast
South Sydney
Roosters
Tigers
Manly
St George
Penrith
Eels
Sharks
Bulldogs
................ Now to be clear here. Make a profit, not debt free.
2016 NRL [urlhttps://www.sportingnews.com/au/other-sports/list/how-much-debt-is-your-nrl-club-in-parramatta-eels-sydney-roosters-canberra-raiders-penrith-panthers/126btjdgrajn812q1fohicol1n[/url
2013 SL. [urlhttp://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/21211330[/url

Possibly none, but there are some outside of that list who are living within their means.