The salary cap does not exist to prevent idiot chairmen running their clubs into the ground. Firstly, because they recognise it would be bad for their club, but secondly because they wouldn't have the money in the first place.



Currently we are investing huge amounts into young players, only to see the NRL, or worse RU, take them off. We get all the expense of training them, they get all the benefits of having them. That's an unworkable system for RL in the long term.



There are probably 4-5 clubs (Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, St Helens & Salford) that could spend significantly more than the cap. It would be better for the game that we have those 5 keeping hold of British talent while kicking everyone else apart, than that our starts were lost to Super League forever.



We will never build a succesful game as a feeder competition to the NRL & RFU, no matter how 'equal' the competition is.

That the cap is a joke is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain.



If the sport can't cope with a flat cap (pardon the pun) of sufficient size, then it needs to find a structured solution (a ton of reasonable suggestions, from the simple 'marquee exception' to more complex ones - for instance, I'm all for no cap at ALL, but a limit of 13 players on more than 50k)



We too often think this is just about the isolated cases such as Tomkins and Burgess, but we forget the hidden impact on future generations of making League (at least in the UK) look like a sport without the possibility of glamour or significant financial reward. In la-la land, it wouldn't matter, kids would just dream about pulling on the shirt, but the real-world is different. Kids dream about fame and playing in front of huge crowds, and yes, earning lots of money. In any sport only a tiny, tiny few will ever realize that dream, but you must at the very least create the *possibility* however remote, for those with talent and passion. Forget the isolated cases - this is about long-term decline with the sport in the hands of unqualified morons. For every Burgess you might worry about, don't forgot that there's also probably a hundred kids who sign up for a Union club as a juniors instead of a League one , because of all the work we've done to make sure the sport looks like a declining two-bit one.

Interestingly, at least the first two of those clubs named have publically gone on record against a notable increase in the cap.

Saints are more interested in a minimum cap to safeguard player salarys than an overall increase too

I've coached approximately 150 teenagers in RL over the last few years, 17 of which have gone on to contracts with professional clubs at various levels. None have ever asked about potential earnings to help decide which code to follow. All simply picked the code they enjoyed playing the most. 16 of those 17 went to RL clubs.

Actually, it was only fifteen to pro rugby, three of which contracted with pro clubs before being coached by me but were coached by me whilst at their pro clubs. The one who went back to RU did so because it was a better geographic fit with where he wanted to go to Uni.

We're obviously fine then. Seriously though, the problem *isn't* the 150, it's all the others who [imight[/i have turned up in the first place if RL looked like a more interesting proposition.

I can't see why a marquee exemption wouldn't be considered; your highest paid player is exempt from the cap, allowing wealthy owners to secure some of the biggest and brightest stars in RL - seems eminently sensible to me. Wouldn't benefit my club one iota, but it would be good for the game.



I'd also look at some more complex options, such as home-grown players being completely exempt from the cap and a limit on the number of games a player can participate in during one season; give flexibility and freedoms to clubs by all means, but force them to behave virtuously in return - in this case, by creating better pathways for British juniors.



On that front, I would also like to see pro clubs given some consideration (perhaps by way of salary cap) if they forge demonstrably beneficial links with community clubs, as opposed to just sending a mysterious bloke in an overcoat to stand under the sticks at jr games when they get to U14's.

Firstly, there is no data to show just how many players we are losing to 'richer' sports.



Secondly, there is little evidence to suggest that increasing the cap is going to solve the problem of lost talent. The chairmen / CEOs of the three most successful Super League clubs have gone on record against such an increase and the only people who are in favour are the likes of Koukash, who is at a club with a poor youth development structure and looking for 'quick win' success.



Sam Burgess is in an environment where he can earn a significant sum from rugby league. That suggests, albeit anecdotally, that increasing the salary cap isn't the issue.



Instead, the issue is more likely to be one relating to the respective profiles of the game, the international honours that are on offer and the possible media exposure that comes with it. Throwing more money at our tiny talent pool of players doesn't solve that.

I can absolutely guarantee that potential earnings or a perceived lack of international scene are not a factor at all in making the sport an attractive proposition to teenage players. Enjoying the playing side is their sole factor in choosing to join. A viable (particularly geographic) path to a professional career becomes a factor later. Being able to earn more in RU, soccer, american football, ski jumping or any other sports is not a factor.



At least three of those were already contracted at pro-RU clubs when we first got them, by the way.

Quote Richie="Richie"I can absolutely guarantee that potential earnings or a perceived lack of international scene are not a factor at all in making the sport an attractive proposition to teenage players. Enjoying the playing side is their sole factor in choosing to join. A viable (particularly geographic) path to a professional career becomes a factor later. Being able to earn more in RU, soccer, american football, ski jumping or any other sports is not a factor. At least three of those were already contracted at pro-RU clubs when we first got them, by the way.'" Well, with your absolute guarantee in place, we have nothing to worry about. In reply to the other poster, yes, correct, I have no data. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, kind of data to gather reliably - " count the number of people who haven't given RL a thought, but maybe would have given RL a thought if the were sport bigger, more attractive and more lucrative". Am I 'speculating'? Yes. However, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to suggest a link between numbers taking up the sport and the profile of the sport, which is in turn linked to the sport's ability to provide lucrative income to star players (amongst other things of course). So obviously 'not ridiculous' does the argument sound to me, that I will, in my own mind, believe it to be an accurate summary of the way the world works, passing the burden-of-proof otherwise to those people who would disagree. 150 people who [idid[/i take up RL tells me absolutely nothing useful in that regard - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias The other poster indeed undermines his own point by mentioning the tiny player pool. In summary, I believe there is a long-term connection between our decision to shut money out of the game, preventing clubs investing in player talent, and the very fact that the pool is so small. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong

Quote Richie="Richie"I can absolutely guarantee that potential earnings or a perceived lack of international scene are not a factor at all in making the sport an attractive proposition to teenage players. Enjoying the playing side is their sole factor in choosing to join. A viable (particularly geographic) path to a professional career becomes a factor later. Being able to earn more in RU, soccer, american football, ski jumping or any other sports is not a factor. At least three of those were already contracted at pro-RU clubs when we first got them, by the way.'" Well, with your absolute guarantee in place, we have nothing to worry about. In reply to the other poster, yes, correct, I have no data. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, kind of data to gather reliably - " count the number of people who haven't given RL a thought, but maybe would have given RL a thought if the were sport bigger, more attractive and more lucrative". Am I 'speculating'? Yes. However, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to suggest a link between numbers taking up the sport and the profile of the sport, which is in turn linked to the sport's ability to provide lucrative income to star players (amongst other things of course). So obviously 'not ridiculous' does the argument sound to me, that I will, in my own mind, believe it to be an accurate summary of the way the world works, passing the burden-of-proof otherwise to those people who would disagree. 150 people who [idid[/i take up RL tells me absolutely nothing useful in that regard - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias The other poster indeed undermines his own point by mentioning the tiny player pool. In summary, I believe there is a long-term connection between our decision to shut money out of the game, preventing clubs investing in player talent, and the very fact that the pool is so small. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong

Hetherington in particular has been proposing some sort of marquee exemption for a few years. Lenegan seems dead against any type of increase for players.