a cap that does not rise along side inflation will lead to may of our better players leaving to play union. there SC is nearly 2.5 times the size (in england) and in france it is £7.1 million.

no matter if you play for quins or wigan, when you go to get a new contract, and you get told that you cannot earn any more than 3 years previous you will get a little annoyed. if inflation was 4% each year for those 3 years you would need £1.13 for every £1 you earned in your old crontract to MAINTAIN the lifestyle you had previously. so in effect that would be telling players to take a pay cut every season.

if i was a player i know what i would be doing, learning how to ruck and maul because i could earn 2.5 times more playing RU in england or 4.3 times more playing RU in france.

perhaps they should base the cap on average body fat percentage ?

walker in for feka ?

Or perhaps even the NRL.

Plenty of clubs have had their crowds go down. Sponsors have declined and costs will have increased during the last couple of years.

The fact that they are already losing money backs up that things aren't great (although that may be a commercial decision), and extending the SC would simply pile further losses on to many clubs.

I'm not disagreeing that there should be an increase, I just don't always think it's as clear-cut as some club's fans make out.

Players can get pay rises. It is up to their club to juggle their playing staff, as players are off contract at the end of every season.

Some RU clubs are losing millions per year. Fortunately for them they have people to foot the bill, so comparing to their salary cap is irellevant really.

just because the cap is raised it doesn't mean clubs have to spend to the limit

although i do agree, the rfl/sl do need to come up with a discount for bringing your own talent through, not just keeping hold of a player for 10 years!

They should base the cap on turnover then it would provide clubs that are being held back a chance to grow. The better the competition the bigger the sky money would get and all clubs would benefit. Relegation and promotion should come back too imo, the teams at the bottom of SL and at the top of the Championship are stagnating because theyve got nothing to aim for. Maybe they could have a relegation/promotion playoff.

Yes, but to give someone a rise you need to eliminate or reduce another players wage, not great if you have for example just won the title

What do you think of the below Dave?

yes single players can get pay rises, but think about it as a whole.

again say inflation had been 4% for the past 3 seasons. in season 1 you could spend £1.65 mill. in real terms that would be £1.856 mill by the end of the 3rd season. but yet you can still only pay £1.65 mill. which means some of the talent is going to leave the SL, and this happens to all clubs.

the thing that i think has helped recently is the league growing by 2 teams. it has helped soften the blow of inflation because at the start of the last 3 seasons there was a total (in SL) of £19.8 mill to be spent on wages. now there is £23.1 to spent as a whole. which means players can still get a deal at another SL club and the talent can spread between the clubs. but when the effect of the two clubs being added rubs off i do think players will look to leave, unless the cap rises, it doesnt have to be massive, just a small amount.

IIRC Leeds turnover hit £10m last time. THe likes of Wigan, Saints and Wire turnover between £4.5-£5m. Are you saying it would be good for the game if Leeds could spend double the amount we do, and potentially five times the amount that someclubs can afford to?

I do agree with yourpoint about looking at the total SL wage cap as a whole. If this is not increasing then it can be a problem. One of the benefits of the cap was to spread the talent, however if this means that there simply is nowhere for players to go then yes it needs looking at. We have no evidence of this happening though.

So how did Leeds manage to double the turnover of Saints, Wire and ourselves? I didnt think there would be so much difference.

As more experienced players leave then you should bring in younger (cheaper) lads, and promoting some of those ex-young (cheap) lads to be the higher paid players. This is natural progression and it is how Saints and Leeds have done it, and the likes of Wigan are now reaping the rewards from this (very few top end signings in recent years).

I agree with incentivising home-grown and academy graduates through the Salary Cap.

I would give clubs different caps based on how many overseas players they have.

God knows, just what I read, and I wonder whether there is something to do with the Union club in there, but I wouldn't have thought so.

They have had the highest crowds, who pay for the most expensive seats in the game, and they have had plenty of finals etc. to increase revenue.

Warrington have said in the past that their turnover is between £4.5-5m and it wasn't so long ago that Wigan were at a similar amount, although this may have now improved.

Leeds (legally) manipulate the income from league and union to the best tax and other legal advantages. Similarly Whelan (again legally) surpressed Wigan's turnover and diverted it into his other companies for tax purposes.

Tax fiddles surely that doesn't happen in Rugby League

Yes and how many union clubs in England are in the brown stuff up to their dicky bows?

Unless you had some players on ridiculous wages. I'm not saying we have any prop forwards who are on money they're nowhere near worth, but rectification of contracts when they come up for renewal should help clubs keep the books tidy.

ps Before I get it royally, I'd like to say I think the salary cap should definitely be raised.

Clubs won't agree to give SC incentives to players who are home grown.
That would benefit the clubs with the best youth systems of which two are Wigan and Leeds.
The rest of SL won't vote in something that gives Wigan and Leeds an advantage over the rest. It should happen but it won't!
What was written about the tail wagging the dog?

leeds??? really. i think there are quite a few clubs out there with better youth systems than leeds.

Wigan have more players from their academy in SL than any other club.
Leeds are second in this as far as I know!

Burrow
Mcguire
Sinfield
Hall
Ablett
Diskin
Bailey
Burgess
Kirke

Plus BJB out on loan at harlequins.

What a rubbish academy they have........

Leeds' development record may look good on paper but since the "golden generation" of McGuire / Sinfield / Burrow / JJB / Calderwood / Diskin / Bailey / Mathers etc. all came through at roughly the same time quite a few years ago, only Lee Smith and Hall have established themselves as regulars.

But none of those players are particular old, and still have a good few years left at Leeds yet. They have current players like Ablett, Kirke, Burgess all regularly playing first team. As well as a couple out on loan who are going to become first team regular like BJB.

Leeds are as good as anyone with their academy. Thats why they've been at the top for so long. Same with Saints. Thats where we are heading hopefully.

I dont think in this day in age the should be a cap you shouldnt crush somebodys dream cos they can only spend x million on players, when was doing what we did in the 80s n 90s they was us maybe leeds/widnes that could compete with us for money but now we got hull fc,leeds, saints, wire and us.