We shouldn't be raising the prices, we should be finding a way of attacting those who watch the game in the pub or at home on sky.

Well he is doing it now with the cap we have in place so if he wanted to spend that bit more he would need to up the clubs turnover by making it a properly run business and investing in marketing, youth development, community projects etc....

Essentially he would need to run it like IL runs Wigan

Not to the extent I'd like him to be able to though. He's signed some solid players but there's a massive gap between Meli and Morley and Tomkins, Watkins etc.

It already is £1.85m as of next year is my understanding. It was £1.6m but you got various dispensations such as an allowance for a player like Lockers who had been at a club 10 years and for however many senior and junior internationals you produced and so on. If you qualified for the lot you ended up with a salary cap of £1.85m. Wigan probably did qualify.

Next year I believe it's just a straight £1.85m cap with no strings attached. No 50% of turnover rule either but that won't work anyway because the cap is "live" and you can only check turnover after the season has finished.

Koukash is a wealthy bloke attracted to the game yet he is being hamstrung by the salary cap i wonder how long he will put up with the restrictions before he packs up and moves on out of the game as whole

We most certainly do not!

Look at the mess capitalism is making of the world right now. In a genuine capitalist system we would end up playing Saints, Leeds and Warrington ad nauseum. The RFL SHOULD be regulating the competition. The salary cap in principle is a good idea, but needs to be raised or changed radically to allow clubs to compete in the market that is Super League, Union and the NRL.

There is NO money in club ownership. Individuals get into it for a variety of reasons, probably more to do with ego than any idea of making money.

Finding wealthy individuals is not the answer (The Koucash thing will end in tears that's a cert) surely the way forward is to have supporters and the local authorities having a GREATER say in clubs ownership ~ clubs should belong to the community NOT an individual. The game has to be self-reliant with income coming from TV rights, sponsorship and supporters pockets not wealthy individuals, who let's face it aren't really that interested in small clubs in the north of England. Look at the trouble Everton have had getting an owner with money. They get 35,000 gates every other week plus a global marketing opportunity plus much more from Sky than any Rugby League Club does, and they still can't find a sugar daddy.

I'm probably in a minority here but as a lifelong Socialist I still believe that Socialism (not Communism) can provide plenty of answers.

You're talking about two separate things here, world government and rugby league government. I'm socialist when it comes to world government because that's where I believe things should be geared towards looking after those at the bottom, because IMO it would be immoral to not look after them. However, in rugby league the greater concern should be with those at the top, if those at the bottom can't keep up they won't starve or go homeless, they will just have to improve or give up and let someone else have a go.

Socialist principles can applied across the board. The word "Politics" means embracing all areas of life. I don't think you should abandon your principles just because this is sport. Socialism as you know is based on fairness and equality of opportunity, community action and a lesser gap between rich and poor all of which to an extent we can have in Rugby League whilst realising that yes we do belong in the real world and some clubs cannot be propped up if there is no demand for them (ie nobody wants to watch).

I've made this point before but Rugby League in this country has been incredibly sustainable. I would be concerned about the WHOLE of SL not just those at the top. As I said you would end up playing Saints, Warrington and Leeds ad infinitum, ad nauseam!!!

But that is essentially what we have (all bar the last sentence that is). There's very little gap in the spending power between most clubs as I think I'm right in saying the vast majority spend at least close to the limit, the gap in ability to win games is getting closer all the time as more and more of the top players leave the big clubs. Great, right? Wrong.

Soon Super League will have no 'Super' players, they will all be playing NRL or Union. Then how long before the fans stop turning out to watch ever decreasing standards of rugby? Then how long before tv and sponsors take notice of dwindling crowds and stop investing? Then how long before talented youngsters start playing other sports which do have superstars?

If we don't do something to allow clubs to pay their best players top dollar, we'll soon find we don't have any players worth top dollar. I hate to sound like a doom monger but I really do feel that rugby league in England is teetering on the edge of a cliff, and there is a distinct lack of noise coming from the RFL to say what they're going to do about it.

Yes good points, well made. I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

I think I am proposing a loosening of the cap or a raising of it so that our clubs can keep the best players if they have the money. What I am dead against is some sort of free-for-all 'survival of the fittest' because that is not what sport is/should be about.

I share your gloom sometimes, but I wonder how we would feel if Sam Tomkins played for Leeds or Saints. We might take a more rounded view that these things come and go and that at the moment it really is all about the strength of the Aussie dollar.

The need for change has been obvious for a decade.

Club owners (sadly, including IL) take a different view and the RFL fail to provide any leadership (in fact they make things even worse).

The game is in a shockingly weak state. The plain fact is that the SC hasn't been raised in line with inflation and yet clubs are still getting into serious financial difficulties, some are still going bust. The SC is at least a third less in real terms than when it was brought in.

This is a damning indictment of the SL project, the SC, the club owners and the RFL (and the hordes of idiots who used to come on this board and tell people like me that all we wanted really was a return to the days when Wigan "bought everyone"' and were "killing the game" etc etc).

I don't expect change, not unless Koukash challenges the SC in court. Based on the NZ court's approach to claims made about the domestic RU SC in one of the few court cases on this area he could well get a sympathetic hearing from the English courts, given the abject failure of the SC to achieve its objectives. If anyone who knows him reads these pages I would suggest they tell him to consider getting a QC's opinion that the SC in its current form is probably unlawful and then inviting the RFL and other clubs to a meeting to discuss a way forward.

I could well understand if he decides its all too much hassle and sells up.

The only other way change will come about is in about 10-15 years' time when the game has become semi-pro (except for Wigan and Leeds). By then though it will be too late (if it isn't already) and the game in England will be on its way to what seems to me to be its most likely future: a competition similar in stature and quality to the French domestic league.

I am a bit confused by your post.

Firstly; who says the game is in a shockingly weak state? Super League crowds this season are not down by much and are a lot higher than ten years ago. We have a World Cup to look forward to when loads of new people will see the game and hopefully will be impressed by it - isn't this a great opportunity? It may seem weak because the playing standards are slipping a little, but "shockingly" weak, I'm not sure the facts fit your view.

Secondly; are you saying Super League should go? You seem to be suggesting a return to the old days would be worse!?

Thirdly; you state "some" clubs are going bust. Have I missed something - neither Salford or Bradford went bust - or do you mean someone else?

Taking your points in order:

1. Financially the SL clubs are in a very weak condition on the whole. I find it shocking that clubs cannot afford an increase in the SC after well over a decade of inflation eroding its value.

I admire your optimism in relation to the RLWC.

2. Not sure what you're asking here.

3. Bradford went into administration, which is an insolvency procedure. Salford ran out of cash but managed to delay the hearing of a winding up petition long enough to do a bail out deal with Koukash. Not sure what your definition of bust is.

3rd party sponsorship of players wages and/or transfer fees?

Say Applicado have more money burning a hole in their pocket and they think i know what would be just as good as getting our name on the shirt, we get the best player in the world playing in our shirt.
or
A wealthy business man who loves the club and thinks i don't want Tomkins to leave, i'll phone him up, find out what NZ Warriors are offering and i'll double it for him to stay.

None of which hit the club in the pocket in any way shape or form.

Each club can spend 1.6 million or 50% turnover unless they have the external financial backing ala Salford and has 1 marque player which doesn't count on the cap what so ever. That means the cream from the NRL and Union could be bought. Also when a player comes through the youth system and has been at the club 10 years their salary doesn't count in the cap if the clubs choose to take that option if they can afford it.

We could have O'Loughlin and Hansen not on the cap which would free money up for Tomkins and then bring in Sonny Bill Williams as the marque player

What world are some supporters in where finance of the game is concerned ?

You cannot spend more than you have coming in and the main reason why club's end up in administration.

The answer is for club's to attract bigger gates but what chance has our game got when people now prefer to sit at home and watch sport on Sky television, especially when football is rammed down their throats by the media.

The best way to get more money into the game is to sort the international scene out and that means a return of the ashes. You can have a popular domestic product but that doesn't generate outside interest and you need that outside interest to get big sponsorship deals etc

If we have enough teams to create a World Cup our governing bodies should push to get our sport into the Olympics and Commonwealth games.

as Rugby 7s is now in the Commonwealth games, is there anything stopping the RFL putting in a team to challenge Englang RU to represent the country at the games ?
as a minimum wouldnt it be nice to have a mixed team, so that neither code loses face ?

What about Koukash? He can't wait spend a bucket load of cash. As long as the owner can afford it or it comes from a 3rd party and the clubs finances are in order what's the problem?

Could do with changing games to Sunday afternoon, have 1 game Friday and 1 on Saturday for sky then all the rest on a Sunday afternoon.

By playing games on Sundays you get more away support.

It depends what you do before/after the game I suppose. For me the Mrs knows Friday is rugby night, and generally that's fine because there's little else happening on Friday apart from going out round town, in which case me being available from 22:30 works out alright. It also means I can regularly persuade a couple of mates to come to the game if I go out round Wigan afterwards, one even ended up buying a season ticket and another three tend to spend about £200 a season each on tickets. Plus a tenner each every week on beer at the game.

Compare that to a Sunday, the Mrs will have plans for me, my mates will be watching football or just not want to come out because it's work the next day.

Makes me sound like a right p*sshead but I bet a lot of people are in the same boat. Having said that Sundays would definitely make more sense for Hull and London where you can struggle to get over unless you go straight from work and only eat when you get there.

One thing that has always interested me, is the American attitude to sport. In most things the Americans are very capitalistic, they don't like the idea of the NHS as they see free healthcare as some form of socialist oppression, however in their major sports they operate salary caps and are fiercely protective of them. I follow NFL, and the American attitude is very much that the game comes first, they market the game vigorously through things like NFL films all about bringing money in to the game, and wanting a fairly even competition to keep interest in the game. They are also very wedded to their playoff system and aren't too bothered about the perceived unfairness that a team can go 15-1 in the regular season and then bomb out in the first playoff and season over, where a team can go 8-8 in a weak division and end up scraping their way to winning the Super bowl.

The American attitude to sport is much more about levelling the playing field being a good thing.

Two big things make it work in America.

1. The US is a big place with a lot of talent and sport is taken seriously at all levels. There are enough quality players, to fill NFL rosters with elite players. Where there aren't enough elite players like over here you get imbalance.

2. Youth development in the US is not the responsibility of the clubs. It is done by the colleges, which means they have a separate system for developing young players, and then give the clubs a chance to draft players from those colleges. The draft system means clubs that struggle one year get prime picks of the new graduating talent. I also think its a good system that they have very strong college football and rather than players turning pro at 17 or 18, rookies in the US are 23 or 24, which is probably why its so common to see the best rookies have incredible seasons straight away - they are pretty much the finished article by the time they graduate in to the top level.

In the absence of points 1 and 2, you can't replicate that kind of tough open competition even with a salary cap. In Australia they sort of get close as they have point 1 but not point 2. Although in some ways they do have point 2, in terms of the Queensland Cup. Melbourne Storm don't have an Academy, they draft in the best graduates from the Queensland competition. Could we use the National Leagues in a similar way? Difficult, but worth exploring.

2 more big thing that make it work in America

1/ No American Football "Union"

2/ No American football on the other side of the world offering bigger salaries

If rugby league had a lockout like the NFL did in '11 how many of our superstars do you think would hang around?

As I understand it, the NFL SC is a collective bargaining agreement between the clubs and the players union. Can't see the RL club owners going for that!

The NFL clubs don't face direct competition from another sport for their elite athletes. However the game in general faces competition from a lot of other sports in America, for the best young talent. There are high school kids that are offered scholarships for basketball/baseball/football/ice hockey and those sports also offer big earning power.

But yes it is a big point that there is no rival competition overseas. When people talk about a salary cap in the Premier League in football, the first point to shoot it down is, unless the other clubs in Europe have the same cap, then English clubs will slip behind.

RL doesn't face European competition though so you could co-ordinate it so that the NRL and SL have the same salary cap more easily than you could enforce European wide cap in football.