Between Salford wanting to buy big and the player drain to other sports / places a lot off people talking about the salary cap again and how they would change it.

What if the salary cap stayed but you could pay players you have brought through more?.

What i mean is you have a squad of say 25 players. Of those 25, 15 have come through your academy and entered top flight. You then have your salary cap in place but can choose to pay those 15 players more if you wish without affecting your cap.

Obviously you would have limits but it would mean that you could keep the players you have brought through. So the likes of salford and hull kr dont just bring through talent to see it sign for someone else they can actually offer an incentive to stay.

At the same time it puts more pressure on clubs to really work on youth which can only be good for the sport.

On a minor note it might even make some matches bigger. Take a wigan saints derby. They are already high occasions but if nearly every player on the pitch had gone through ftheir respective acadamies and were practically home grown id guess that it would be even better.

Thoughts?

I prefer the idea of a relationship between BARLA and the RFL where each club has feeder amateur clubs that supply to professional clubs depending on catchment area. rather than going to the highest bidder. That way the 'poorer' clubs have an opportunity to develop youth locally and have a conveyer belt of talent coming through, build relationships in schools and local youth teams from a young age. Once the players make first grade then a percentage of their wages doesnt count on the cap. Combined with a restriction on overseas players we should see clubs predominantly represented by local players which of the vast majority of fans want to see. It will improve the standard from grassroots right the way through as there is that interaction with professional coaches withing schools and amateur right from a very young age.

I think there are only 3 teams unable to spend to cap (Wakey/Cas/Hull KR) possible 4 with Bradford surely it's time for the cap to increase to reflect this.

What is the purpose of the cap - to equalise the competition (failed) to stop clubs going bust (failed) to raise standards (failed) to adequately reimburse our best athletes or young players (failed) to attract the best talent (failed) to increase our chances at international level (failed) or to stop Wigan winning everything (this was happening anyway in 96 and 97).

First we need to know what the purpose of the damn thing is before we start tinkering with it.

I'm not a great fan of that as it imposes a restriction on a players trade. For example, in today's league a player from somewhere like Cadishead could find himself split between Salford and Warrington, I know which I would chose to try and progress my career through in that position.

A player in Lowton (Wigan Borough but Warrington Postcode) may well be a Wigan fan and find themselves in the Warrington catchment but not wanting to go to Warrington.

I have stated similar thoughts on academy produced players. My approach is incredibly simple; first years' salary - 75% exempt; second year - 50% exempt; third year (on the basis that a player is established at this point) - 25% exempt.

Whilst it is a simple approach, I do believe it to be workable. It would have to be tied in to appearances, to stop clubs filling their squads with cheap options .

I can recall Stevo saying on TV that "We have to find a way to stop this lot!! (Wigan)" Wish i knew where it was on Youtube..

Rewarding clubs for producing talent should be rewarded.

If the cap's purpose is all about stopping clubs buying success, it's probably done that - Whelan could have made Wigan the best club in the world with his pocket money. But the downside of this has been the re-establishment of Rugby League in Britain as a poor man's game.

It's no longer the case of 'if' a player like Sam Tomkins will defect to RU, it's a case of 'when'. I'd be amazed if the likes of Ryan Hall, Ben Jones-Bishop and Kallum Watkins weren't also in Union's sights. This is a massive hindrance to team planning both at club and international level, because even if you manage to persuade the players to stay, it's a big distraction and causes a lot of uncertainty. Even those who go and come back - Lee Smith and Karl Pryce for example - seem to be shadows of their former selves, having clearly been handled by inept buffoons.

What's more, given the cash status in Aus, it's now far less likely that gaps in teams will be filled by overseas players - so we need to keep our homegrown stars more than ever.

As most SL clubs now have wealthy backers, I don't see why the RFL can't start making significant modifications to the salary cap. Homegrown players should either be exempt from it or should be discounted in some way; how can that be wrong? - it would encourage player development. We could also use a central fund for marquee players - I'm sure Union has something similar - so that the creme de la creme are set up comfortably for life if they make it to the highest level in RL.

At a time when Australia is leaping ahead in terms of its funding, its player development etc, and RU, despite everything we hear about the clubs being broke, seemingly has pockets that are deeper than ever, sitting still and taking no action to hang onto our crown jewels is not an option. It really isn't.

NB

It does make you wonder what the clubs/RFL were thinking when they made the complete hash of 're-organising' the U20s and U18s.

The simplest way to allow players to earn more which is in my opinion what is definitely required is to remove the restrictions that are in the salary cap that prevent players making money from things like image rights.

Players like Chase at Cas could earn more money and it wouldn't bankrupt the club and it would mean he wouldn't have to sign for a bigger club to reach his earnings potential.

We have been trying to say the sport is professional since 1997 and yet offer a level of pay that is far too low for a pro sport in 2013.

Salary Cap should be 50% of turnover with only a players salary from his club counting. lets reward players/clubs for showing some initiative where their pay is concerned

That wouldn't stop Koukash either? He'd only have to sponsor the team with his business's and that would count as turnover so Salford could still spend maximum cap.

Well that would be fine. I didnt post a reply to talk about Salford in particular, more SL in general. If a wealthy 'sugar daddy' wants to prop up a team then thats up to them but at least it might force the smaller teams (i.e. Wakefield/Castleford/Hull KR) to at least attempt to compete with the 'big 4'

I think we more than competed with you today thanks very much

Which attitude underlines the problem.

One of the game's minnow clubs gets the odd good(ish) result and everything's alright in the garden.

Except that it isn't. As well you know.

one day doesnt make a summer

The salary cap was started to put a limit on clubs spending 90% of their income on players wages. There was no other matter involved at the time.
The "making a league more competitive" came years later after it was found that the SC hadn't and wasn't stopping clubs going broke.
With 13 of the 14 SL clubs having wealthy backers who can and do bankroll clubs the SC surely has had its day?
It had never had any credibility with me as the RFL don't check the players tax returns and bank accounts. How can they simply accept the clubs words and figures saying they are paying a player a given amount with out verifying it. Total nonsense.

As for a system based on a clubs' youth production.
It could be called "Player Ratings".
The lowest rating for a player making the first team who came through the club's scholarship scheme.
A higher rating for a player who came from another scholarship scheme but transferred to a club where he played for the U19s and first team.
Second highest for a player who has been transferred as a first team player but not an International.
The highest rating for an International having changed clubs.

It would be convoluted and complex but it could be done. With being based on a youth production rating it would be transparent and understood by all.
The SC has to be confidential re players earnings but this then becomes secrecy when applied to the SC.
Secrecy is never good when trying to establish the credibility of anything.

I'm not sure I'd be in support of simply ignoring the salary of a player who came through a teams own academy. Otherwise you may well get clubs stock piling good youngsters and not using them. That would be great for us, Leeds, saints etc but bad for the league as a whole IMO

Maybe make it a solvency test. Clubs can pay what they want provided that they can show ongoing liquidity. Provides reward for success yet stops clubs bankrupting themselves to compete.

Well clubs have fallen foul of the salary cap and I think Bradford got done when a sponsor of a player (I think it was Harris) was found to have other links to the club in some way. So they have caught players out with some less than straightforward checking up.

I think you are also forgetting there isn't a great appetite to increase the cap from the owners. IL's doesn't want it to go up and doesn't have a bottomless pit of money to chuck at Wigan and I don't think any of the other owners want to do that either. 13 out of 14 may bankroll the club to various degrees but I don't think the directors at HKR or Wakey are keen to put even more money into their clubs to fund an even larger wage bill.

That is another reason why I said let players earn money outside of the game without it counting on the salary cap which it does now. That would certainly help without requiring the owners to be forever pumping cash into their clubs.

Ultimately what is needed is just more money in the game but the higher profile it gets due to players like Sam T getting more media exposure the more it ought to be be able to sell itself to TV companies. For players to be doing that though they need the incentive to be able to earn from their media work.

I'm not in favour of increasing the cap. I never thought it should have been introduced in the first place because it was never, ever going to stop clubs going broke and hasn't.
What we need is something better to encourage clubs to develop players from their own towns and cities. The "Player Ratings" is just one way and their are various ways of running that. Say, 100 points for each 17 on match day, 4 catagories, the lowest being from a clubs scholarship etc as I mentioned above.

A lot of these new club chairmen aren't interested in pumping more of their own cash in rather than putting the clubs finances on a more sustainable and business like basis so they won't have to.

Apologies, I didnt mean postal address of home address, I meant the amateur clubs you choose to play for be divided to catchment areas to act as feeder clubs to the local pro side. You choose the amateur club which could be one of several and they feed a specific pro club. If the pro club decide to sell or are approached with an offer for a certain they are financially compensated but the reward is that by developing and keeping this talent you can afford more under the cap. You will never stop transfers between clubs but if the feeder system is in place and the rewards that come with it then concrete grassroot and youth development are consistently there across the board and ruch clubs cannot just cherry pick all the best young talent across the North of England. This way we will eventually have a more level playing field that is genuine not just by stifling growth of the big clubs with the current cap structure. You could look to introduce an Origin style series where the first club you signed for is the county you represent rather than the pointless Exiles series. It would assist development in hot beds of RL such as cumbria as well. Its a win across the board for me.

So what did you mean by this then?

"With 13 of the 14 SL clubs having wealthy backers who can and do bankroll clubs the SC surely has had its day? "

That the cap is just not needed to stop clubs going bust?

The cap hasn't stopped clubs going broke, it was supposed to do that but never has. Why anyone thought it would is beyond me. With all the costs a club has just limiting the players' salaries never seemed to be enough. Real costs controls over all club activities has to be put in place and enforced. As the SC has failed for so many years in it objective I simply don't see the point in continuing with it.
The wealthy club backers want success but equally don't want to pump very large sums into their clubs as it may foster wage inflation throughout the game. The good Dr at Salford maybe the exception to this at present.
I would favour a method of increasing the supply of players into the game. Some clubs are good at it some not. A player ratings system maybe one way and I'm sure there are others but something has to change if we are to get the improvements we all seek.
Take our own club, IL has put money in but almost from day one he said he wanted a fully financially stable and self sufficient Wigan RL. That he's achieved.

Why not only have overseas player on the salary cap, then that would be an incentive for clubs to produce young players

Another thing why is the coaching staff in the salary cap?