Those who said we wouldn't get half as much as last time look very silly now. I wonder if any will have the balls to come on here or the VT and admit they were wrong. I can think of one in particular who deserves a large portion of humble lobby.

Surely the increase in TV revenue now warrants an increase in the salary cap to £2 million or even £2.5 million, providing that figure is less than 50% of a club's turnover.

I think this was the figure that was originally used when the salary cap was first brought in - a club could spend up to 50% of its turnover up to a maximum. After all the so called rationale behind the SC was to prevent clubs spending beyond their means and going bust, Curbing spending to 50% of the turnover was the means to this end.

Wigan and other well supported clubs are now penalised becuase the £1.6 million is way below 50% of their turnover. Just because Quins, Wakefield ( Saints?!!) have low crowds and thus low turnovers doesn't mean that all clubs should have to suffer.

Even £2.5 million would still be dwarfed by the NRL salary cap and Premiership RU salary cap. Hence the reason for players leaving - maybe only a few so far, but if the salary cap isn't increased next year, there will be more.

Why would they increase the cap that much when it works out around an extra £250k per team a year?

What was the £Sky deal when Mo Lindsay was in charge?

It would not be compulsory to spend up to £2million/2.5 million, but if a club could afford it because they have a turnover of £4 or £5 million, then why not?

Others have called it a communist cap and in many ways it is - as it brings all clubs in its present state/amount down to a relatively low common denominator.

I am not advocating there should be a massive disparity (ie some clubs spending £5 million or even £10/20 million when others can only afford £1.6 million - which would be the equivalent if you compared the spending power/discrepancy of Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea etc with Latics, Blackpool, Bolton etc).

In short, if a club can afford to spend £2/2.5 million, they should be allowed to - particularly if it allows them to keep certain stars from switching codes/going to NRL.

Yep, but the actual increase is even less than that. Works out less than £100k per year per team, providing we stay at 14 teams (and I'm not convinced the RFL have the bollox to drop Wakey).

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/dec/11/premier-rugby-tv-deal[/url

The increase looks to me to be just enough to cover the cost of a new/additional team, be that Wakefield or Halifax who are still hanging on, unless of course clubs take a small hit in TV money in exchange for two more home games and both are admitted.

the extra 100k should be added to the cap

We need to do something about the salary cap soon IMHO or we will be losing our best players to either the NRL, now their salary cap is increasing massively or to the RAH RAH's here or in France who seem to have money to burn at the moment.
Not only will we lose some of our best young players but it will be difficult for us to attract the best foreign imports who will be enticed by the NRL money deals.
All we will end up with is the NRL players at the ends of their careers who can't attract a big salary over there and potentially making our game less attractive to the 'neutral' viewer - result viewing figures go down Sky don't see it as a worthwhile venture and either pull out or reduce their offer next time.
The RFL need to look long term here and realise that If they don't increase the cap now the long term effects could be catastrophic for the game.
The only solution is to increase the SC to at least 2Million but with the same provisos re turnover etc and the same exemptions for players who have been at a club as a junior and after 5 and 10 years.
RFL act now or get left behind.

Yep, that's the same info I posted earlier but from a different publication.

well I am going to play devil's advocate here and say that I think once again Sky have shafted the RFL and bought our game on the cheap.

The RFL are weak negotiators who show no ambition. To accept such a meager increase over a long term deal is selling their to the lowest bidder.

By the time this deal expires, the NRL, funded by a billion dollar TV rights deal, will have creamed off our best talent and lured back the best of the antipodean contingent, leaving our game seriously weakened and lost in the wilderness.

While our game can't be compared to the NRL we should at least be trying to aspire to their level.

This deal may look like a good one in the current climate but I think they should have played for a short term deal and renegotiated on the back of the new Aussie deal when it comes into play. Additional rights to show Super league games in Australia back to back with NRL games, International rights (If we had a decent setup) could be worth a fortune. Interest generated in the expanded Aussie comp could have a positive effect on our game over here (Global sponsorship alone could bring in millions) but in five years time we will have missed the boat again and all that will happen now is we will probably die a slow lingering death as our "super league" plays second fiddle to football, union, and everything else.

90 million sounds like a lot but its not much more than we get now and its not going to pay off Wakefield's tax bill! After the clubs take their share what is left over for expansion, grass roots development, or the Championship? We should be striving for a professional second tier comp that can act as a proper breeding ground to develop and nurture new talent. It would also make our league a true premiership with all the accolades it deserves. Its about time the governing body (and the clubs) woke up and put aside their selfish short sighted attitude for the good of the game. With a bit more ambition they can achieve a hell of a lot more.

At least its an increase, part of me didn't even expect that.

We need to be increasing the amount of money coming into the game though on a larger scale. We still have international fixtures and challenge cup games to be bought.

Could the RFL not sell rights in France? Or aus and NZ? We need extra money from somewhere.

Face facts 90 mil is a good price.
RL fails to attract attention outside of its heartland. The national newspapers are geared to a London market, so much so that most had no reports on Friday or Saturday regarding the Wigan Saints game.
The only way RL will figure in newspapers is if we have scandal about the private lives of some of the stars. All this talk about expansion and global rights, offers no concrete ways of producing interest or revenue. Although, he can't handle english accents, perhaps Russel Crowe had a better idea, to utilise the current interest in "Rugby" in the USA. "Rugby" USA (seems only to be Union) is the 4th fastest growing sport there, perhaps more sponsorship of the formative leagues there will pay dividends for SL in the future.