Doesn't matter. Their wage bill is covered completely by the grant they get not by the revenue they generate. I am sure they make use of whatever revenue they generate themselves but if they were watched by an SL average gate they could still pay to their cap.

On the way home from the Wigan-Salford game tonight I put Radio Manc on in the car to hear Koukash take the virtually opposite view to IL. He actually said in plain English he is going to break the cap if it is not going to be raised!

His motivation was basically if you pay peanuts you get donkey's so why would blue chip sponsors want to put money into RL in the UK when all the best players are not here?

This is the exact opposite of IL's view of being OK with the cap as it is and asking why raise it? Koukash can see why it needs to be raised (well from his point of view scrapped).

Seems to me Koukash despite daft bids for players like Sam is the kind of bomb up the backside RL hasn't had since Mo was around. I bet IL isn't happy because without a cash injection from the likes of TV money I doubt he could (or wants) to finance a much bigger wage bill whereas Koukash is plainly willing to do so.

Mind you I don't think Koukash wants to do this for ever. I think he sees raising the cap or scrapping it as a way to attract and keep the top players here so the sport can get increased sponsorship so he doesn't have to keep funding it.

As the Chinese philosopher once said; "May you live in interesting times".

With the failed salary cap effectively keeping players wages down for 15 years. I cannot help but feel for our quality players.

Larger viewing figures mean nothing, it's the value of each individual doing the viewing. I'd guess there's a lot more BMW and Range Rover adverts during union games and a lot more bingo and Iceland adverts for us council estate dwelling northern oiks for league.

But that's how your preferred system works, they club together for their benefit that's what franchising is and a low cap also

No it isnt. If you arent smart enough to work out the difference (having been told it) you are beyond help

I came across these couple of articles from years ago which really shows how much the game has been held back by the salary cap and there are a few comments from Lindsay and Whelan which are still more than relevant today. Also note the contrast with Lenegans comments:

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-63257/Rugby-Union-welcome-Warriors-win-fans.html[/url

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-62747/Lindsay-calls-end-salary-capping.html[/url

[iWhelan insisted he needs to rescue the situation rather than allow his club to be reduced to a mediocre outfit.

Dave Whelan, Wigan's owner, fears that league, mainly because of salary cap restrictions, will be unable to stop union clubs, who have no such constraints, plundering the best talent and lowering league standards.

Whelan added: 'Rugby league seem intent on bringing the standards down and we are going to fight like hell against it.

'We are not going to let this club sink to the level of the bottom league clubs and the Northern Ford Premiership. It is much better if we go and play the likes of Leicester and Saracens.'

Now former Super League and RFL supremo Lindsay wants the salary cap abolished altogether to aid league's fight in the 'poaching war' against rugby union.

'We are fighting rugby union who are trying to sign the backbone of our Great Britain side,' said Lindsay last night.

'With the salary cap in place, it is like fighting with both arms tied behind your back. We should revise our thinking in the light of the considerable offers being made to our players.[/i

Now get beyond the Wigan to Union nonsense and there are an awful lot of good points. All of the same problems which existed over a decade ago exist now but they are even more so with the additional threat from NRL clubs. Have Lindsay and Whelan also proven to be right with the lowering of standards and exodus of players to Union (and now the NRL)? The lower clubs have, on the whole, made absolutely no progress and the top clubs have been dragged down to their level rather than the other way around.

What I found most interesting though is the figures. The year before the salary cap came in Wigan had spent £3.2m on players' salaries. When the salary cap came in Wigan were given special dispensation for a salary cap of £2.3million, despite other Super League clubs being bound to £1.8m, as they could not get below this amount due to existing player contracts. At this time clubs only received £650,000 a year from Sky, compared to £1.2 million now. So all in all despite every Super League club getting an extra £550,000 a year we now have a salary cap which is actually less in absolute terms than it was when it was first introduced, never mind taking into account inflation, and this is also despite greatly increased attendances and much higher ticket prices.

In 2001 Wigan spent £3.2m on players' salaries which is the equivalent of £4.54m today once you factor in inflation, if you factor in clubs now getting an additional £550,000 a year from Sky and they could be spending £5m+. Even when the cap first came in at £1.8m that would be £2.5m in todays money, again factor in the increase in Sky money and we should be looking at a cap of around £3m. Instead we have a situation where the cap has decreased drastically in real terms and a cap that means we cannot retain our best players, and even average players in some cases. Can you imagine the situation in another decade if the cap remains the same? Do people really expect it to remain the same in the vain hope that the lower teams get their act together, when they have failed to do so for over a decade despite getting an extra £550,000 in TV money and inflation constantly eroding what they have to pay?

[i'It won't happen unless the RFL look at the salary cap situation immediately. There isn't time to wait for a strategic review'.[/i

Uncle Mo had it weighed up 10 years ago!!

If the cap is scrapped where is the money going to come from to allow clubs to spend more?

The only club that would benefit massively from it would be Salford, which is why Koukash is so keen for it to happen.

How would it benefit the game as a whole? How would it stop the best players going to union (of which there still aren't that many)? How would it stop the best players going to the NRL?

It would probably improve a small number of clubs who already have strong sides, plus Salford. Is it going to create a strong Super League? Of course it's not. It's going to increase the gulf between the strong and the weak because those clubs near the bottom can't even afford to spend up to the cap limit as it is and would struggle to be competitive against sides that could spend far more.

Players are moving down under because the NRL is competitive, it's a challenge, it's the best league there is. Preventing a handful of British players from leaving isn't likely to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. The ambitious ones will still leave.

You just can't start spending when you don't have any money to start with. The game needs to generate more money before encouraging people to spend it.

Many clubs seem to be run terribly as businesses and if you take away that limit of what they can spend there is always the risk that they will just push themselves too far - the sport can't afford to lose clubs.

Let a few clubs spend a lot more on players and you'll just drive wages up for the rest of the league as Widnes, Cas or Wakefield end up paying over the odds to keep one of their better players from signing a big money deal to warm the bench at Leeds.

It's not like Super League has received a huge cash injection that will benefit the entire game. That's what happened in the NRL and that's one of the reasons why they are now in such a strong position.

All that has happened here is a rich owner has taken charge of a club and wants to start spending money. It hasn't improved the financial position of the sport or the league as a whole so how can it be used as a basis for scrapping the salary cap?

You can't just start spending money that isn't there. The game needs long term financial sustainability, not a comic strip villain going on a spending spree.

That's not to say that the cap must stay forever, but there are other problems that need to be addressed first, such as turning Super League into a true elite competition.

Reduce the number of teams in Super League, concentrate more of the top players into fewer clubs, then raise the cap for a league that is hopefully more equal and more attractive to top players.

It's no secret that the game needs sponsors and investment, but they need something that's worth investing in. We can't assume that one rich owner splashing the cash will encourage others to follow suit.

Are you saying that Wigan cannot afford to spend more ?

Mr.Lenegan did not say 'we cannot afford to spend more'.

What he actually said was; "Why would 'I' want to spend more ? "

That is the 'language of big business'. Pay the workers less to increase profits.

I'm saying the British game as a whole can't afford to start spending more. This should not be just about Wigan. The salary cap affects all clubs after all - so even if Wigan could spend more, we still seem to be one of very few clubs that could do so.

The focus on scrapping the salary cap detracts from his overall position. IMO he could learn to be a but less controversial in order to get his main point across which is you need quality players in SL to attract blue chip sponsors. In the short term he sees the need to be able to use his own cash to get Salford up there quickly and people are focusing on that rather than what he has to say about the overall problem.



You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that is all there is to it. Get a gig in the top 25 players of an Aussie side and you are on a minimum of £53K a season. Plenty of incentive to suddenly become ambitious! In any case if we want to keep the quality in our game we can't really afford to lose the players that go. We are weaker minus the ones on Oz already such as Graham.



You are just repeating the same old and very tired objections. Have you not read the thread? The clubs can't generate the required amount of revenue off their own bat just the same way the NRL clubs can't. The money needs to come from outside the sport as it does in the NRL. The worst team in the NRL can still spend to their cap. If they want to waste money on keeping their best player who isn't really that good in the grand scheme of things that is up to them! So what?



If he is a comic strip villain can I be Batman? Honestly that is a really stupid label to apply to a man as successful as he is. He's the kind of person we want in SL. Everyone lauds IL for being a successful businessman. What are people afraid of? Koukash has more money he is prepared to chuck at Salford than IL is at Wigan?

He has two agendas. Salford's and that of the sport. One is short term, one longer term. I doubt he want's to fund Salford permanently out of his back pocket and he isn't daft enough to think Salford being the only club able to afford top class players is healthy. His position is to get blue chip sponsors you need blue chip players. And you have to pay for blue chip players in professional sport. This fact has been obvious to me since Wigan went pro never mind the rest of the sport. I have been saying literally for YEARS if you want a pro sport you have to pay for it with high wages.



It won't work. If each club gets £1.2m lets say we drop two clubs and ruthlessly (and are able) to deny them any of that money that would give the remaining twelve clubs an extra £200K a year. Wow.

Drop four clubs and go down to 10? Better as we get £480K a club but its still a cap of just over £2m



He is firmly of the belief they need something that's worth investing in but isn't daft enough to assume one rich owner splashing the cash will solve the problem. Why do you think he is?

The problem isn't the chairmen or the salary cap. It's the RFL themselves.

There is no money in the game. The tv deal and the sponsorship deals need to improve before the cap can be raised.

I do not want RL clubs operating at a loss like pretty much every football club in the land. Why? Because the banks would call in those debts without a second thought.

I can see where you're coming from, I just don't quite understand how you expect Super League to attract 'blue chip players' when there isn't that much money available throughout the league.

The only real players who might be a big draw are Australian internationals and they won't give up international selection or Origin selection to play in Super League. I don't see why people expect Koukash to make such huge signings because even some of the top NRL players aren't household names and won't make a significant difference to the sport. Koukash might sign top British players but guess what, we've already had those players here and they didn't bring in any significant sponsors.

You just can't expect one or two teams to sign some better, big name players and expect the sport to improve. We need a competition that is worth playing in and a competition where teams can spend the cap. If you think we can afford to scrap or raise the cap now then surely you would think we can do the same in two, three or four years time after trying to improve the quality of competition first.

You don't need the best players to have a good quality competition, you need excitement and competitiveness. If you have that then maybe the likes of Lee Mossop, James Graham, Sam Tomkins etc might consider staying in Super League.

And I don't think he's daft enough to think one rich owner splashing the cash will solve the problem, but I think other people are.

As long as the money is held by a very small number of clubs the game isn't likely to show significant improvement even with investment in better players. The one sided scorelines will put fans, players and investors off the game.

All Koukash is likely to do is sign better players for Salford from clubs already in Super League until Super League becomes more appealing to players.

The salary cap serves no positive purpose whatsover.

Hold on. Clubs now get an additional £550,000 from Sky compared to when the salary cap was first introduced. Clubs are getting aditional money and yet the cap stays the same and players wages are going down each year in real terms. Factor in inflation and we should have a cap of £3 million if all things are equal and the extra TV money was put towards wages. Instead the cap has gone down slightly and is constantly eroded each year by inflation.

The smaller clubs have had more than enough time to catch up and look absolutely no closer to the big clubs, in some cases they are further away. Short of some of these clubs being taken over and managed properly I dont see how things are going to improve, do we just wait forever? Based on Lenegans comments will he even want the cap to go up anyway even if all the League can spend up to the cap, after all why should he spend extra when Wigan has the production line that it has?

Well it certainly doesn't do what it was 'officially' intended.

To stop clubs 'going bust' !

Or create a more even competition, as some would have us believe.

Looks like there's going to be a shake up of the SC in this re-structuring.
Jamie Peacock's idea was good that he spoke about on the SLS.
Re-allocate some of the SC monies and allow a club 2 of their top players who would be exempt from the cap.
IL's not wanting to pay more is obvious, however those who tend to pay the most usually win the most as IL and everyone else knows.

Why don't they restructure the cap based on salary tiers, something like this...

2 players can earn over 200k p/a with no upper limit.
3 players can earn 125k - 200k.
8 players can earn 75k - 125k.
All other squad players must earn a minimum of 25k p/a.

That means that top clubs can hold on to their top star players (£250k+) but can't stockpile loads of them. The mid range tiers allow talent to be spread amongst clubs. The minimum salary means younger talent is rewarded with reasonable salaries.

So now can you tell us were all the extra income is going to come from ?. It seems people are great at finding ways to increase the cap but I don't see many people coming to tell us how we can generate more cash.Cause if you can the Rfl would love to hear from you.

You miss the point completely. The system I proposed does not necessarily involve increasing the cap. The only compulsory element to it is the minimum salary of £25k. There would be no requirement of the poorer clubs to throw megabucks at top players, but there is also nothing restricting the richer clubs from paying their top players good money. It is a structural suggestion rather than a simple cap increase proposal.[/list

Maybe you can suggest a proposal yourself?



Course they would

You and others miss the point.

It is a CAP not a requirement to spend.

So 5 players could possibly earn 1.2 million

Is that a statement or a question ?

The overall wages and salaries at Wigan and every club go up each year. So the whole of the increase is taken up by the non playing staff.
We can always find the money to pay them.
If we can increase the money for the non playing staff at all clubs then why not the players? Why are their salaries capped? No one else's are!
So the most important people at the club, the players, have their salaries capped and the rest get their's increased.
That is just so Rugby League!