With Bradford's current financial state stemming from over spending while not taking in enough money, and Salford apparently also close to being in a dire situation. Is the Salary cap of £1.65 million really saving the poorer clubs from themselves?

It would be hugely unfair to reduce the salary cap as it would stop the top clubs, that are well run and turning a profit, from building a good squad and playing good rugby. (most of said clubs would probably be happy to see an increase in the salary cap).Tthe NRL and Yawnion would be poaching our top players more than ever.

So as it stands there are several clubs that are running themselves into the ground by spending more money than they are taking in. so how far do you think the Salary Cap is looking after the best interests of the smaller clubs? Perhaps the only reason they spend outside their means is because they are speculating to accumulate, which is hard when there is a financial ceiling in line with other clubs that also have the lure of success.

what does everyone think?

If the clubs arn't run properly then it doesn't matter what legislation the RFL have in place.

The salary cap in itself was never designed to protect clubs from overspending, it was deisgned to stop wealthy clubs employeeing all the best players. The £1.65m cap should be irrelevant if you can only afford to spend £1m. Clubs dont get into trouble for spending "up to the cap", they get into trouble for "spending more than they can afford".

For me the primary purpose of the salary cap is not to save clubs from themselves, but to save the sport from (even greater) predictabilty. Given that Leeds beating Saints has been the GF result in 4 of the last 5 years and Saints have been to Old Trafford 6 years in a row, you could argue either that it is failing/has failed or that it is more necessary than ever. Without the cap the gap between the wealthiest and poorest would be too big - you could remove those uncompetitive/unprofitable/benefactor-less teams, but you might well then be looking at a 6 team capless SL.
The cap has been cut [iin real terms[/i in each of the last few years.

How many clubs are there that make a profit? There aren't many.

What Sl needs is a reduction in the number of teams. There isn't enough talent to support 14 teams and that means we get a watered down product on the field.

You do realise the primary source of SL income would be pro-ratated accordingly.

I always repeat the same thing, but once again, I see the cap as a very blunt instrument which can cause as many problems as it supposedly solves. In particular it doesn't work very well if different clubs are capable of generating vastly different incomes. Or rather it kind of works if your intention is to drag the successful clubs down, but that's not a good ambition. We simply won't grow the profile of the game if Wigan's (say) spending is to be linked in some way by what Wakefield (say) can afford. Most importantly (to me at least) it blocks money out of the game. Maybe there just isn't our version of Abramovich out there, but I'd like to think that if there was (or if I won a Euromillions rollover) they could come into the game and make a massive impact on our profile - for example, by buying up guys like Dan Carter and others that would shake the press up. The problem is, that rich people are only ever going to want to come in through a particular club - can you imagine Abromovich deciding that he just loved soccer, so instead of picking a club, he'd just give money to the FA? No. Whether childhood fans, or simply egotists, or both, rich folk usually want to create a specific team that they can be 'proud of'.

It seems to me, that there's only two things we need to fear: clubs getting into stupid levels of debt, and a club or club buying all the best talent leaving the rest with scraps. That can be fixed without a flat cap.

Rules should be:

Spend what you like on individual players, subject to the following

This would sufficiently protect the 'lesser' clubs, because no matter how much money one particular club with a sugar-daddy decided to spend, they could only buy 13 'stars' meaning plenty left over. Now, perhaps *today* you could argue that there wouldn't be much left over after the best 13, and you might have a point but I think that's partly self inflicted. You see, if there were a few teams around who could pay superstar wages, then kids coming through and other players would see League as a place where you *could*, if outstanding, be very successful indeed. So even the lesser teams would have players desperate to impress to break into one of the coveted 'top 13' sections of a club with money (ideally of course their own club!). Also, given that you can only have 13 stars, squad management would be critical, because injuries would be a great leveller.

A lot of people seem to think that a flat cap (the phrase is apt) is the only way to stop the situation like when Wigan were untouchable. But I think that was less about Wigan's first 13 and more to do with the fact that they probably had close the to 2nd best team in the League too, sat on the bench, so other teams (and the game in general) were deprived of talent. The system above prevents that. Lots of players striving for the big time, but only 13 per team able to get there, fixes it for me.

You might want to tell Nigel Wood about his mistake then

"Wood calls the game's salary cap a "very definite and deliberate attempt to assist clubs to be able to develop on a sustainable basis" and says the RFL is heading for another year of profit."

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/georgeriley/2012/05/in_a_week_that_has.html[/url

Frankly, I don't think they even know quite what they're trying to achieve with a cap. Feels a lot more like "we want a cap, let's justify it", rather than what it should be: "OK, here are the problems we want to avoid, alongside the income and sponsorship opportunities we want to create, now, how can we structure a set of financial controls to facilitate that?"

I agree. Do the RFL have the expertise to police the cap through out the year in its current form? Its seems to be easier to administer an overall cap spend rather than a percentage of turn over. Wonder if this was the reason it was brought in?

Despite what was oft read on the Wigan forum until a few years ago, the salary cap does not stop any club building a successful, or even dominant, team.

In his 2009 Grand Final interview, Kevin Sinfield inferred that Leeds were by no means the best payers in SL and that, if they wanted to, any one of that final-winning team could earn more money playing elsewhere. Yes, Leeds spend the full cap and Sinfield especially is not exactly badly paid, but the point stands - I'd imagine that the same is true at St Helens.

If you build a team who are motivated by achievement on the field, rather than fiscal gain, then you'll have a very successful side.

Salary cap protects no one. It only serves to level the playing field and make 50/60 point drubbings along with only a handful of clubs actually winning anything and of course stop clubs going bust, a thing of the past. Wait a mo, it doesn't even do that. It's the worst thing ever introduced into this fine game. It stifles innovation, stops richer clubs helping out poorer clubs by buying their best players and thwarts ambitious clubs from expanding. It's a disaster and they should bin it straight away.