We don't have the talent pool, a low cap just means we can't supplement the team with high grade antips.

Step 1: losing our homegrown stars: bring in the rules that were proposed September 2013 limiting the value of a home grown players. Why the SL clubs are dragging their feet on this I have no idea. The rules have been brought in for the championship, so they're still on the agenda. This won't protect our youngsters like Joe Burgess, but the few established stars we do have are at least financially viable for the clubs to compete to keep them.

Step 2: increasing the cap: I think 10 of 12 teams this year are, or can, spend up to the cap this year. So it is reasonable to now start raising it. I think 300k pa is too much, but an agreed 5 year plan, increase it to £2m and increasing by 50-100k a year isn't infeasible for all clubs to keep up - raising revenues by that much with turnover in the millions shouldn't be too difficult imo.

Step 3: when the cap hits £2.5m allow 3rd party payments, this is the thing that has inflated Aussie wages through the roof. I would be very strict on the definition of 3rd party, and the business' involved must have no connection to any board member, and the company would be required to pay the full value of their contributions up front and placed in a bond.

Step 4: building on step 1: clubs should still be rewarded for contributing players to the international cause, so their cap should be limited to 100k normally, 75k after an England knight performance, and 60k for an England capped player.

Step 5: Marquee exemption: only after the first 3 have been introduced would I bring in the marquee exemption in - to give those struggling with business connections.

Step 6: our youngsters: bring in a minimum wage for top 25 players. Rumour has it Joe Burgess earnt 8k for his performances last year - it's no surprise he's then looking for the door. Most teams will have money off the cap at this point, and should leave room for a minimum value of say 40-50k a player, which is still a fantastic wage and stop our kids being targeted.

All imo.

I've always been an advocate of increasing the salary cap but in all honesty I don't think scrapping it would be the worst thing, I mean, it was brought in to make all teams more competitive and we just see the same small group of teams winning the league all the time so has it really worked?

I think the best idea would be to introduce a marquee quota of say 3 players that are exempt from the salary cap. This might encourage some of the Aussie talent to come over for a year or two just to say they've done it if nothing else.

There is a finite number of quality players available to Rugby League and increasing the size of the talent pool would be far more beneficial than simply paying existing players more to stay. It's all well and good saying let Salford spend what they want, but who'll be there to pick up the pieces once the Dr gets bored?


As for stopping players leaving the code? I would think given the hype, time, effort and cash spent on getting Burgess to Bath, only for the press to now reckon he's "over it" will put off any other potential raids from Union. The French union seem happy to pilfer the All Black camp and there isn't any cash in ARU to pay for anyone else after Izzy, so let's concentrate on increasing the player pool, not making it more exclusive.

Good ideas and fully agree.

Nobody mentioned the ARU, french rugby union, Burgess' move to Bath or anything to do with other codes.

This is the wrong discussion to be having.

Thanks for that. Care to enlighten us?

Paying SL players more money doesn't solve anything.

Would having the ability to pay James Graham enough to keep him at Saints not have improved Saints?

Increasing the salary cap would be the death of rugby league in the Uk. It nearly killed Wigan off in the 90s. There would only be half a dozen competitive games a season including the play offs. How on earth would that get us closer to the Aussies when teams would coast through most of their games we need more games competitive not less.

We would need 12 billionaires owning the clubs and be able to play at least 10 non Europeans to compete with down under. Why cant people get real and realize we don't have the strength in depth of home talent and skill.

Exactly. Widening the gap even more between the top 4/5 clubs and the rest will only result in less and less competitive intense games which wouldn't help those teams or players when they play the Aussies and would in reality damage our league......yes we might keep a James Graham at Saints or a Sam Tomkins at Wigan but who wants to see them and their respective teams stroll past half the league even more comfortably than what we often still see now. You want to see those players pushed to their best.....not going through the motions of another 40/50 point battering of some lower placed team.

Newsflash

The top 4 or 5 teams already beat the lower sides fairly regularly and comfortably, how many sides have won SL, the only side not to have won it that could are my own side.

Why do we always have to rip everything up and start again after the inevitable lesson dealt out by an Aussie club or international side? these threads pop up every time and it almost becomes laughable reading them. If Saints had scored them couple of tries they should have in the first half and Souths hadn't got the rub of the green on a couple of theirs and the scoreline had finished at say, 26-12 we are all sat here now saying well done Saints, gallant effort against a great team.And,Well ,Warrington should have won and Wigan only lost in overtime so its been a good weekend and we pretty much matched them.

People need to realise that the NRL as a competion is light years ahead of ours and always will be because they have so much more going for them down there. Doing away with the cap, or bringing back Yorks v Lancs or whatever else crazy ideas people come up with won't make a dent.

Its almost like comparing the Football Championship to the premier league. The Championship will never live with the Premier League in regards to Money invested, TV deals, Wages, quality of team, star names etc etc..They are light years apart like us and the NRL but it is a good, competetive competition in its own right and from time to time the championship side can beat a Premier League team.

I agree with those who say invest in the youth and put resources in getting more youngsters participating in the game. That is the way forward but unfortunately there is no quick fix here.

I know and those winning margins would be even larger if they were allowed to spend more and more.

16 years of falling wages and still some pretend it's not enough. Wigan payout less than half of what they did 16 years ago but any change will send them bust. 60% increase in funding this year but no share to the ones actually doing the work.

People seem to have somehow convinced themselves that everything will be ok as long as we don't spend on players. That the money will be diverted to youth development. Yet they don't see that the clubs spending the SC are already the ones spending on youth development only to see that investment go and earn their worth somewhere else. There is no point in pumping money in to creating a limited and valuable resource only to see that resource up and leave to your competitors.

RL is the only sport I have ever seen cheering from the sidelines it's own demise, celebrating its thrift as it gets left behind.

Tough. It's not the players responsibility to subsidise clubs playing at a higher level than they can afford.

*cough* 2006 Hull FC *cough*

We're never going to get near Saints 2006.

Maybe not, but because Hull FC got to the final, Wire are not "the only side not to have won it that could" as stated.

by trying to keep the entire super league artificially competitive, we are dragging the entire standards down to level of the lowest teams. We are finding it difficult to attract young players to even play the game in the first place as the career prospects are poor and financially un-rewarding. The simple fact is there is not enough money in the game in the UK for all clubs to make the game a viable proposition. with the ever increasing salary cap in the NRL it is more likely that those young exceptional players we do unearth in the game will be lured away by the financial rewards and lifestyle, even those who want to stay at home have the lure of the rewards of moving to Union. Unfortunately there is no easy solution as we are a minority sport in the UK, should we allow clubs who have the aspiration and finance to compete on equal terms with the NRL or Union or do we hold them back???

Do we want to be the NRL feeder league ???????

We aren't losing/not attracting young players to the game because of the wages of SL players. A 12 year old has no idea how much SL players are paid. They play the game because they enjoy it.

The reason we don't attract or lose so many young players is because:
- we only reach out and give the opportunity to play RL to a tiny proportion of these young people,
- too many don't enjoy playing RL, for a few reasons at different ages.

If we change these things then we'll see an increase in young players playing the game.

I would second that. I must have coached 150 kids aged between 15-16 and only once has anyone asked about earning potential, and that was a parent. Kids choose the sport they focus on because they enjoy it. We do not give many of the UK kids population a chance to find out if they enjoy RL.

Is this not for another thread really? I think the point of the thread was about how we retain the talent we do have and hault the drain to the NRL, rather than how to increase the pool. You're both right by the way, and it is an issue, albeit a separate one.

If you took that 1million pound per club salary difference and invested it in getting more kids playing rl and better jnr structures you would find we would be much closer to,the nrl in ten years!