I would second that. I must have coached 150 kids aged between 15-16 and only once has anyone asked about earning potential, and that was a parent. Kids choose the sport they focus on because they enjoy it. We do not give many of the UK kids population a chance to find out if they enjoy RL.

You see i dont get this, i dont understand why we are so desperate to protect clubs chairmen from themselves, why we feel the need to put the responsibility for the games well being not on those with the power and control to change how the game is run, but on those who earn their living from it.

It seems entirely contradictory. You say that these players arent worth big rises, then argue that the SC is the only thing stopping them getting the big money. How can they be both not worth that amount, and have some one willing to pay them that amount.

I dont understand how people can be wedded to the cognitive dissonance required to see that a) our players arent worth more, B)that they are being offered more but we can't afford it c) that whilst they cant afford it, owners will spend more, D)that though they are spending more they wont bring any better in, e) any rise in the cap will be spent on paying existing players extra even though they arent worth it.

It just doesnt make sense. A player is worth whatever someone is willing to pay him. If Dr Koukash wants to offer some championship level plodder £1m a year, that player is worth a million pounds a year. Thats how a market arrives at a value. We seem to have decided that a player isnt worth what an owner is prepared to pay for his skills which is self evidently wrong.

I think you have hit upon the greatest dissonance within the SC. That Leeds/Wigan with turnovers £8M-£12M turnovers cannot afford to compete with salary caps that are £3m/£4m so should have limits placed upon that spending at £1.8m. Yet Cas/Wakefield et al turnover circa £4m can spend £1.8m, and any promoted clubs who will be in an even worse situation will be allowed to spend the same. Thats clearly not true. Thats clearly an issue with the SC and why it doesnt work, or do the things people suggest it does, and why the results wouldnt be as the perceive. The SC actually has the square root of fsk all to do with affordability. Its less than 20% of Leeds turnover, close to 50% of Wakefields,

a couple of things about the 'targeting' of the cap, firstly things like developed player exemptions sound good in principle, and they do reward good work. However they also have the unintended consequence of keeping the status quo. A club can't salford, even run perfectly as Koukash's critics would love, is at least 5/6 years away from reaching parity in terms of spending power under the current cap rules. That is absolutely mental. Especially under a P+R system, developed player exemptions simply make things far easier for the big clubs, and nigh on impossible for a smaller club.

Id also ask what the difference is affordability wise in paying a kid you developed a million pounds a year and paying greg inglis a million pounds a year?

Marquee allowances, again there isnt any difference affordability wise between paying inglis £1m a year, and getting 10 better players on 100k a year more. Whilst a marquee exemption is better than what we have, we should really look at what we want and then whether it is necessary.

The SC in my opinion isnt doing what it set out to do, it isnt achieving the things it was sold on and it has many negative consequences. So we should ask what it is we are actually wanting and whether there are better ways of doing so,

My opinion is fundamentally we shouldnt limit a players wages, if a mans skills are worth x amount to an employer, thats what he should be paid. Anything else seems somewhat exploitative.

Is the SC the best way of distributing talent? or would a draft or even squad limits be a better example of that? I.e a match day squad can only be made up of 5 players developed outside of SL/Championship and only 5 players who have played for another SL club? that would mean that a 17 man squad could only contain 10 players that had been brought in and 7 from your own backyard. Increasing the value of players you have developed to you, whilst somewhat limiting it to other clubs. (if you only have 5 places in a matchday squad, are you really going to waste that on some expensive average joe from another SL club?)

Is it the best way to stop wage inflation? Do we want to do this? it seems to me inflation isnt the issue, affordability is.

Is it the best way to keep things affordable for clubs? no, clearly not, multiple clubs have gone bust with it, it has no resemblance to an affordable figure for clubs, its a pretty arbitrary figure in terms of affordability. So it clearly doesnt do this. Is there a better way? well nothing is just as good as something that doesnt work. Chairmen are business men, and P+R is supposed to weed out the weak clubs, doesnt removing the salary cap do that in terms of weak chairmen?

Does it mean all clubs can compete? No it doesnt. In fact it has the opposite effect. Take Salford as an example, as a club not expected to challenge they have to pay extra to get the better players. A player with an offer of £100k at Salford for a mid-table dog-fight, possible relegation and cancellation of contract, or £100k at leeds for likely tilts at the title, finals, and near certain lack of relegation and cancellation of contract, who are you going to choose? Some clubs are playing catch up and for them it may be the right choice to spend more on players.

Everything that goes with moving to the NRL or RU, trophies, standard of living, more exposure, world cups etc. they are all miles behind money when it really comes down to it. Every player is a mercenary.

I have a good job, the money is good, I enjoy it and I work hard when I'm there. But if someone came to me and offered me exactly the same job but with a 20k pay rise I'd drop my current job like a stone. 99% of the population would do the same, and in a short career like rugby league its probably even higher.

Everyone wants to play at the highest standard they can, and win things, but it's far less important than making a good living.

Agreed, look at the amount of Prewmiership footballers (and those in other leagues too) who are prepared to sit and warm a bench all season for a huge salary, you get young players going to Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Barca', Madrid, Bayern etc, knowing full well they will never play for the team, but theres triple the money on offer.

Shame isn't it that most players say between 30 & 35 are finished after playing the game and will never work again.

30 years & incapable of doing nothing else before they might, if lucky, get a pension.

What Him said about broadening the breadth of RL in the UK is the only option.

More people playing and watching will increase the income naturally.

I find it bizarre in the extreme that people say there is not enough of a player pool in the UK. For a country with far more in terms of population, wealth and easy access to a European market of potential players over 100 million, yet our talent pool is smaller than that of Australia and New Zealand.

It's a bit of a poor excuse.

People are looking at the NRL today, but for years they have tightly controlled the NRL cap and concentrated on clubs have better balance sheets. Even when the SL took a couple of their players, did they change direction? No, they concentrated on the bottom line. We have far larger potential to grow in this country and growth of the game in terms of TV and attendances will be the key to bringing up both the cap and the quality of the game long term.