Reading an article by Justin Morgan the Hull KR coach on the BBC website predicting that we will not see the same number or quality of overseas players in the UK when the Australian salary cap increases to $7m in two years time. If our cap is 1.65m and the aussie cap in 2013 equates to about £4.5m (Current Exchange Rate) this will surely weaken the quality of the British game compared with the NRL even further.

It concerns me that we could also lose a lot of the best British players to NRL clubs. I suppose it would give more young British lads a chance of playing Superleague but initially there would be a huge drop in quality.

I heard that the Sky TV deal is to be renegotiated later this year with ESPN Sports also keen to bid for the broadcasting rights. With two companies bidding you would imagine the deal will be substantially better than present. If the RL do get a bigger deal for the clubs I wonder if they will increase the cap accordingly to protect the quality of the British game?

Just to clarify, how exactly does the salary cap operate in Super League just now?

Is it essentially each of the fourteen Super League Clubs has to have 25 first team squad players with a maximum aggregate wage bill totalling £1,600,000 per annum?

My understanding is it's £1.65m and you have to have a certain number of young players on no more than £20K-£25K.

I think that an increase in the salary cap will need to come soon, bearing in mind the exchange rate and the current financial climate otherwise some clubs, including us probably, will be back to being a retirement home for crocked Aussies unable to get a contract in the NRL anywhere.

Oh, hang on a minute........

Think it's £1.60mln for the combined first team squad of 25, then a maximum aggregate of £50thd for everyone else. That adds up to £1.65mln.

If you do the maths, if you have any players earning £100thd+, then yes, there will have to be a certain number of other first team players earning no more than £20thd-£25thd to make the numbers add up (to less than £1.60mln/£1.65mln or whatever the salary cap figure currently actually is).

Anything else I've missed?

It would shut up some of the constant whingers - there's too many aussies over here, only here on holiday, taking up spots our kids could be using etc etc.
And if it means our better players go down there and get even better whilst allowing younger players more exposure then that's a good thing isn't it??

www.espn.co.uk/rugbyunion/sport/story/93037.html. This won't help our game either

www.espn.co.uk/rugbyunion/sport/story/93037.html. This won't help our game either

It's a difficult one this because people would argue that talented younger players won't develop as much in a weaker competition. Unless the cap is increased (with extra broadcasting revenue) I can see both the NRL and Rugby Union clubs cherry picking our very best players.

that's how i've read it in the rules. and it's the top 25 paid players who play a fixture within the year not your 'registered' squad at a point in time. That's why Wigan couldnt de-register Richards at the start of the year from the 25 as he'd still be earning thw cash as would have played at soem point.

FWIW I dont think there is any way there will eb a significant increase in the TV money - the added interest will just keep Sky honest and at best, maintain the amount. If the salary cap is increased, i worry the gaps bewteen us and the like of Warrington will grow

It would be interesting to know what the viewing figures are between Superleague and Rugby Union at club level. Does anyone know if the extra money that rugby union get is proportionate?

advertisers pay for the nature of the audience not just the numbers so it will not be proportionate anyway. There is a thread on the VT on the topic I think in which some people are quoting facts and figures

Super League blows the Premiership out of the water but a significant element to this is that one is shown on Sky Sports and the other is on ESPN.

A selection of recent viewing figures:

[codeSuper League Live (14 May - SS2) 168,000
Live European Rugby (30 April - SS1) 160,000
Super League Live (29 April - SS1) 155,000
Super League Live (13 May - SS3) 107,000
RFU Championship play-off final (11 May - SS3) 97,000
NRL Fulltime (12 May - SS3) 58,000
Aviva Premiership (15 May - ESPN) 51,000[/code

However, it's not necessarily the amount of viewers a programme has, it's the class. Or rather, the amount of perceived disposable income they have. In the main, advertisers aim at A, B and C1 classes. In old money, these stand for upper-middle, middle and lower-middle.

So Superleague compared to the Aviva has over 3 x more viewers but our clubs get less than half what rugby union clubs get? :shock :I don't buy the advertising bullsh$t. I think it's more to do with the decision makers coming from a certain social background. I will be reading next that Coronation Street advertising is less than a repeat of Jeeves and Wooster.

You should, Gaz is dead right.

What are they advertising on ESPN Aviva games Rolex's and Bentley's? Blokes for example can only buy the latest Gillette 6 blade razor once. So what they are saying is one third 'a rugby union tv audience' will potentially buy twice the value of a Superleague tv audience? Despite the Superleague audience having enough disposable income to afford pay tv? How can they calculate disposable income? You could have someone for example in a higher value property/postcode area/job mortgaged to the hilt with debts and another person in a lower value property/area with more disposable income? I can understand the theory if the viewing figures were more equal but they are poles apart. What about all the Rugby Union people that also watch Superleague on TV, do they not count them?

There may well be an element of it, old class prejudices die hard and all that. Although I'm more inclined to believe these decisions are made from collated data and probably by a computer using a specific algorithm.

I forgot to mention that in regards to televised sport advertising, the ideal or target audience is men, aged between 18-30/34, in the A, B & C1 bands. I remember reading an article in the [iRugby Leaguer & League Express[/i about a piece of research that was completed on the social breakdown of the televised sport audience, per sport. Rugby union scored relatively well, having a decent percentage of male viewers in the ideal bracket; rugby league on the other hand, didn't. What rugby league did score highly on was the amount of women that watch the game on telly.

The outcomes are open to interpretation, of course. Perhaps the R.L. audience is more family based, with the paternal parent older and children younger than the ideal age bracket yet residing inside the ideal class bands; perhaps it is predominantly working class based within the ideal age bracket. You may also want to scrutinise the research conditions - I don't know anything about the samples and methods involved.

The golden goose as far as sports advertising is concerned is golf. Outside the majors, golf gets around the same audience figures as speedway on Sky Sports - around 40-70k. Yet check the adverts when golf is on. The higher value brands (e.g. Rolex) are on show. I'd imagine the mean audience age would actually be significantly higher than the advertisers ideal, which is contradictory, but golf is intertwined with the world of business: high-powered networking and corporate deals.

By the way, I forgot to attach the source for those audience figures — they are available from [url=http://www.barb.co.ukBARB[/url.

And ps....

It's a market! There is no higher being determining how much an advertiser will pay for what audience - they pay what they think its worth...

which comes back to the TV money. the sport will get what it is worth to whichever TV company gets the deal - there's a few too many people thinking that we're "worth more" without realising that the market is what is determining the price.

Yes I personally feel that 3x the viewing figures is worth more that half the broadcasting deal Superleague currently has when compared to RU. As I mentioned before how many of these demongraphically fitting 'higher social class' rugby union followers also watch Superleague? I think you also have to consider the value of Superleague being the only live contact sport over the summer months. Surely this is unique and lends itself to advertisors of certain seasonal products? Perhaps the Aviva has been overvalued and this disparity will be reflected in next broadcasting deal for Rugby Union. Could it be that ESPN payed well over the odds as part of their strategy for taking some of Sky's existing market? Could Sky have overvalued their own bid to force up the price ESPN had to pay?

Just on another topic did anyone else hear Salford get a mention twice on BBC's Football Focus last week? They were saying they are moving the show from London to Salford from next season. I was quite surprised the presenter actually pronounced Salford right but I think Dan Walker has worked previously in the North. 'Solford and not Salford'