Sensible post again from Mr Redux. Existing clubs desperate to get the players to compete are currently spending up to the cap and going bust because they don't have the income.

So the directors of HKR get fed up of putting their hand in there pockets and get rid of their players, Salford and Cas ( who were not even up to the cap I believe ) have to sell players, and London - well, London is a joke business model. So the only way you could really raise the cap is by getting down to a league of 10. I would guess that would reduce to a group of 4-5 teams over time as the remaining clubs overspent, or their backers disappeared.

As Ian and a previous poster says, clubs need to be self sustaining, they must generate the income to pay for their players. The only alternative is for a wealthy backer to constantly sub the club, and that is a dangerous position to be in, it's not 'sustainable' .

My views on this are quite simple. The two most frustrated sets of supporters in rugby league at the moment are the supporters of Wigan and Warrington. The reason is that both sets probably feel their team should have won the last two Grand Finals but didn't.

Wigan fans are already seeing quality replaced with not quite as good for next season, and have by far the most wanted man in the game in their team and they're worried about losing him in the near future too. Warrington fans are seeing quality players age and are fearing they won't be replaced by the same standard in a year or two's time.

Both know their club has a bit of dough and could afford to spend above the cap IF their owners and board were prepared to, so feel held back.

That's fair enough, but eight Challenge Cups and seven league titles in a row tells it's own story about what happens when one club is allowed to freely outspend the rest. No one wants a return to those days - except very biased Wigan fans maybe!

Money is not necessarily the only factor in players moving anyway. Yes, the NRL salary cap increasing means less high calibre Aussies will be tempted over here, but for years people have complained about too many overseas players anyway. Forcing clubs to focus on youth development is not a bad progression. As for holding on to our own stars, well the fact is the NRL and RFU do have more to offer than we do, like it or not. Going to Australia gives players the chance to experience a different way of life, in better weather, in a part of the world where rugby league enjoys a far higher profile than it does here. Rugby union gives players the opportunity to try something new knowing that if they succeed they could be playing for England in front of over 70,000 people regularly, citing national hero Jason Robinson and current golden boy Chris Ashton as their inspiration.

That's before money even comes into it. Those opportunities will always appeal.

I don't like all the "rugby league will die unless..." scaremongering. In 117 years rugby league has never managed to get a real foothold outside the north, but it's still alive. For it to continue we need to give more clubs opportunity rather than marginalise them as the big get bigger by outspending. We need to stop Bradford type collapses happening again. If that means players go elsewhere for money or any other reason so be it, some will anyway. If Sky pulled the plug and the game went part time again though it will not die as long as there are still tens of thousands of people who want to play and watch it. Which there is. Primarily in the north, yes, but I don't see that as a major problem. So relax.

Aren't London moving back to Kent again next season & how come it didn't take off last time ?

Notice my title is change the salary cap though not scrap it, we need a means of making a club who can afford to spend a bit more being able to?

What about this for an idea, any club who spends x amount over the cap also has to but the same amount in to a kitty that's shared amongst clubs who can't.

So say if Wigan or Wire wanted to spend 1 million over, they'd also have to find another 1 million to put into a pot that's shared out amongst the likes of Salford and Cas.
This way rich clubs don't go flying out in front and the wealth is shared.

Last I heard they had changed their minds again and were staying put. Perhaps it was a threat to get a better deal on the ground rent.

I really havent the faintest why they don't get decent crowds, even when they were higher up the table they never really pulled in the punters. Perhaps the only way to get a club going down here is via a home grown club such as the Skolars or Stags at Hemel.

London are just badly organised in every way you can think of, playing games at the same time as a lot of the amateur clubs doesn't exactly help with crowd numbers either.

What happens to all the "rich" clubs when their wealthy benefactors pull out? It's not sustainable.

This is an interesting idea, forcing clubs to help support other clubs if they can afford to spend over the cap. It's pretty biased towards us though as a financially successful club - any opinions from elsewhere on this?

I don't know if this is a Stevo idea, or whether he has borrowed it from elsewhere but I quite like the idea of each club having one, or maybe two (one UK, one overseas) marquee players which are exempt from the cap. So if Wigan want to keep Tomkins they include him as their UK marquee player and pay him as much as they want and can afford. If we could persude Billy Slater to up sticks and freeze his nuts off for 3 years then he could be our marquee player and we pay him as much as he wants. The rest of the squad is still subject to current cap restrictions.

We would be able to keep the very best players we have in our sport, and there is possibley the opportunty to see the very best from down under playing SL too. Could even incorporate the other idea about paying an equal amount to other clubs - if we signed Slater for £1m a year, then we have to pay another £1m a year into a fund which is shared between clubs that do not have/cannot afford a marquee player

There are 9 clubs that can spend to cap and over (possibly 10 don't know anything about Bulls new owners) which means sharing out between either 4 or 5 clubs that's potential revenue greater than winning SL itself, imagine if say these 9 clubs did spend just 250k over, that's 2.25 million that's £562,000 between 4 or £450,000 between 5 clubs. It's a perfect solution for sharing wealth.

If you do that "marquee player" idea, then straight away you have players already on a club's books who want to be the marquee player and get paid top whack. If another gets chosen one or two get disgruntled and want moves to clubs that will up their dough.

Dressing room disharmony is assured everywhere, and no one really benefits other than the 28 players across the league who end up as the salary cap busters.

You can't attract the Billy Slaters of the NRL, because the Joel Monaghans of Super League will instantly demand the high wages meaning you can't bring a new player over anyway without losing one of the best you already have.

Here's an idea; let those who can afford to spend more (subject to a 50% income limit, which is an iffy base line), but coincide that with the introduction of a draft.

What ?

Strip that down a little GDMM, give an example of how that would work?

Fair enough. What if we learn't that yawnion was sniffing around Richie Myler so we decided to make him our Marquee and Stefan Ratchford wanted to be the marquee then he has three choices. Search for another club that will offer him a Marquee slot, but bearing in mind there will only be 13 available he may struggle. Accept that he's an 'ordinary' player and get on with it. Leave and play kick and chase or NRL. If he chooses the latter and leaves SL, the chances are he would have don that anyway so nothing lost. If he finds another club willing to sign him as a Marquee then good luck to him. The very best players would be spread out across all clubs helping to level up the competition and keep them in SL


I don't think it would. I don't think Paul Wood would have been upset that we signed Morley even though I'm sure Mozz would have been on a better contract. Better players get paid better than their peers, if they're not then they need a better manager.


Same as for british players. It is upto the club to decide is Slater worth the money as well as the risk of losing Monaghan, and if they decide yes then can Monaghan find a Marquee position at another club.

In theory at least, a Marquee system would ensure that the very very best players stay in SL as well as evening up the competition. As regards overseas players, we are only likely to see the very best such as Thurston or Slater which again I think would be good for SL.

As a concept, it's not a bad idea but the fact remains there would be few clubs out of the 14 who could afford a marquee player or 2. This would then again cause clubs to try and outlive their means and go to the wall. 2 teams have already declared they won't be spending the SC next year in Cas & KR and it'd be a safe guess that neither will Wakey, Salford and Bradford either with London's & Hudds massive losses funded by their benefactors even if they do spend the limit.

Until the competition as a whole gets stronger where all clubs can spend up to the salary cap without a big risk of running at a loss, any concept thought of will have major flaws for someone as the difference between Wigan, Wire, Leeds etc is so much different to the likes of Salford, Cas and KR.

To make effective use of the SC it would have to be reduced. But you shouldn't have to handicap the clubs performing well to bring the less well off teams up to standard. Instead, we need to work to increase the revenue and improve the business models for the lower sides to get them upto the level of being able to spend £1.65M on player wages. If this isn't possible, we need to cut the amount of teams in the league as no matter what, the lower teams will be handicapping the competition on a whole.

This is very loose, so bear with me.

Those at the top of the spending tree, have last dibs on signings. Those at the bottom have the first opportunity to sign out of contract players. One potential knock-on effect would potentially, force the higher spending teams to buy players before they are out of contract, aiding the income of the lesser spending clubs.

Basically, a variation on the NFL draft. But it is your financial position which determines, not where you finish in the league.

How does it work in the NFL if players do not wish to go to the club that wants them?

With any system, including Marquee players, there would have to be some spending safeguards which I don't think I explained properly, mainly because I don't know (and bearing in mind I'm kind of making this up as I go along). Clubs would have to provide the RFL with evidence displaying that they can afford their marquee. Maybe a contract from a sponsor or a written agreement from an individual to cover their costs, or some kind of businesss plan.

How this, or any other system, works it is important that the clubs, or maybe it's just a few clubs, need to be protected from themselves or overly ambitious directors/owners. But equally it isn't fair to hold back those well run, financially secure or simply wealthy clubs because of a few less wealthy or for fear of 3 or 4 clubs dominating the competition. Let's face it, the salary cap as it stands has not protected clubs financially, nor has it leveled out the competition.

I dont know if the NFL draft works in teh same way as the nba one used to, but, as monkey has said, the lower your finishing position you get the first pick of the new players coming out of the college system, or high school.

Teams get 'draft picks', and can trade these picks to other teams for players and cash so using SL as an example, if john bateman was available we could've sent a player to widnes in return for their draft pick, allowing us to go first and add john bateman to our squad.

If it's known the player doesn't want to go to a particular team, again, the team can arrange a trade to another side.

The other difference between the american drafts and SL, is that all rookies coming into the league can only earn a set amount for the first 2 years, or so, their 'Rookie' contract.

It's still a daft amount compared to what SL salaries are though.

I dont see that you could do that over here, from an employment law point of view. I don't know how american sports and the college system get around it over there, unless its just accepted that THAT is the pathway for education to professional sports

I imagine so, and bear in mind our salary cap in rugby league is similarly accepted. There's always talk of one in football, but employment law, restriction of trade, etc are all brought up immediately to shoot the idea down and protect the rich.

I'm sure if one of the wealthier men in rugby league wanted to challenge the legalities of the salary cap - resulting it being scrapped altogether - they could go to court and do so. They'd probably be successful, but would also be accused forevermore of destroying the sport.

In fairness to the RFL/SL, they have it pretty well stitched up. The SC is intrinsic to the laws of the game, the first law of the game is; you cannot challenge the laws of the game.

Sorry to be blunt Yed - but where are you getting this rubbish from? If you take us for example, we do NOT have oodles of spare cash piling up somewhere that we'd love to spend on an increased cap. The club still relies very heavily on contributions from many minor sponsors (as well as the obvious major ones) and from supporter organised groups like the Vice Presidents Associations and the Supporters Trust. Without these our youth development would suffer.

An increased salary cap without significant boosts to clubs income streams from major sponsors and/or TV contracts would see further pressure on investment in areas like youth development and facilities.

RL in the UK is most definitely NOT a sport awash with cash. Raising the salary cap is most definitely NOT something we should be doing.

Just out of interest SEB (and not connected to this thread directly) will Wire be spending less on youth development next year as we will lose two age groups in moving to an U16 and U19 side ??