I wasn't suggesting it was a bad idea, I could just think of lots and lots of reasons why it would never come off. As it currently stands anyway. Raising the cap to 2m would barely make any difference with regards to the exodus of talent. The cap is already way bigger for both NRL and Union. Although, imo, the big reason British players will always go down under is the fact that their product is simply better than ours and they want to play at the top of their game. You couple this with a raise in cap levels in the NRL, and now you have teams looking to bring in the cream of British RL because it's value for money. It's almost as if raising the cap has helped richer Clubs retain the world-class pool of players to everyone else's detriment. Who'd have thought it eh?



So the knock-on effect is that lesser NRL teams skim-off our best players. Raising the cap over here will have to be done to stop the rot, but it will have the same effect of pooling the best players to a small elite of clubs. Therefore passing the problem down the line again. There's no real solution I can think of, but part of me feels like neglecting teams lower on the rung will only ultimately bring about our own downfall.

Im sorry but I dont agree with all this reduce to ten teams idea. Are clubs going to reduce season ticket prices by a third considering you would now get a third less home games and what would it do to their revenue streams, yes they will get more money from the RFL but this will be spent on increased salaries to retain players.
We should not reduce the number of team to fit the money we need to increase the money coming in so we can expand the league, like it or not media/fans are more interested in top flight clubs, you get the glory supporters when you are in the top flight and therefore more income.

We need to improve our profile in the national media to gain more interest from sponsors, I watch BBC1 in the mornings and you will often see sections on minority sports such as womens hockey etc. you very rarely see an item on rugby league, until we increase our profile in main stream media we will always be second to union.

Also why is everybody obsessed with the whole league being classed as a level playing field, that any club within the league will win the title/cups, do you think the minnows in the premiership start the season thinking they are going be top over united or liverpool, no, they aspire to be the best they can be and finish as high as they can, if they manage to get to a final along the way then they cash in on it. I can't see any league in any sport having teams which are considered equal, the clubs with the better profiles will always attract the better players creating a stand-out team.

I don't have the answers of how to increase income but I think a market that we rarely tap into is the celebrity market, the sport is loved by many high profile actors/sports person etc. why are we not trying to get these people to promote the game on national TV, anyway rant over.

Very impressed with Jamie Peacock on this one.

Speaks with passion and intelligence over the future of our game and he's also absolutely correct.

I hope the RFL take heed but i wont hold my breath!!

No need to reduce the number of games, just have everyone playing each other three times and you get the same number of games as now. They'll be better games too with higher average attendances which means more revenue for the clubs.

Just like the SPL?

If football was on in my back garden I would shut the curtains. Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the problem there that there are 2 rich clubs that the rest can't compete with? I'm not suggesting abolishing the cap or setting it at a level only two teams can afford so no, not like the SPL

I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.

Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?

As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?

I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.

The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.

There's no quick fix here unfortunately.

This is head-in-sand stuff and typical of the mentality that results in us doing nothing more than sitting and watching.

The problem is not the ones who've already gone, though I notice you craftily forgot to mention Hape, Eastmond, Harris, Paul and Robinson from your list - not all from the same era and not all English, but they were all players who lit up the British game in their day, and all went before they should have (you could also add Owen Farrell and George Ford, and if you include losses to the NRL, Ellis, Graham, the Burgess brothers, with Hock and Mossop on their way,) - the casualty list doesn't look quite so light then, does it?

But I reiterate the problem is not the ones who've gone, but the ones who may yet go. Likely on that list, according to strong rumour, are Sam Tomkins and Watkins (according to his club skipper), and it'll be an absolute miracle if Hall isn't being tapped up - so that's three of your proposed replacements.

What happens then?

Okay, we replace them too ... until those replacements get pinched as well.

Seriously ... how long can it go on that the British game is an open market for any foreign club with a bit of cash?

It infuriates me when British fans adopt that silly Aussie-type bravado about 'it doesn't matter who goes, coz we can always replace them". We haven't got the player resources the Aussies have, and even they gave up that policy in the end.

While the NRL continues to grow and pump more money into itself, raise its cap, spend millions on their amateur and semi-pro game, and generally show us how the game should be run. So in answer to your question, indefinitely at the moment. Raising our cap wont do a great deal either.

Harris and robinson left more than 10 years ago so that's why didn't include them. The answer to the 'problem' isn't a quick fix such as simply raising the salary cap by 5%. I remember when Graham moved to the Dogs and everybody was saying 'I wish more players would go to the NRL, it would really improve the England team' now that seems to be happening people don't like it. Players come and go, they always have now, we can either panic and put in place some short term fixes that could be bad for the game long term, or we can improve our infastructure at all levels to try and increase the conveyorbelt of quality players coming through which makes it easier to replace players who leave to the NRL/RU.

Raising the cap may well go some way to helping - in reality the cap has not increased since it was introduced, so in real terms player salaries have gone down. Now suppose the cap was raised to a level where players could earn a reasonable wage - that could well persuade some players to stay in the game in this country.

At the moment the difference between here and Aus/RU is getting larger and larger with every passing year making it more and more attractive to players to leave. Doing nothing is not an option as it will only get worse as SL falls further and further behind.

I am not sure JP's suggestions are the best ones but at least he is openly saying that something needs to be done and that is to be applauded.

Sadly i fear that the head in the sand brigade will continue to win the day at the meetings/decision making points and things will continue to slowly stagnate.

I agree with what you say, but if the money isn't their to increase the cap what's the point. Why is it the likes of Wigan, Leeds and Warrington continue to vote against raising the cap? Afterall they'd probably be the clubs least likely to be effected by an increase in the cap.

Well said JP.
However, as already stated, each club to play each other 3 times. Thus not compromising gate revenue.
Salary Cap. Not raised [iper se[/i, but to make the salaries of all 'home grown' players exempt.
Put's the emphasis on youth development, which will ultimately benefit the national game. A successful national team = more interest both from media and public outside of traditional RL heartland = higher profile = more success.
i.e. an upward spiral, rather than the current downward helter-skelter approach to the game that Red Hall seems to be content with.

Maybe not exemp, but I don't think their full salary should count on the cap. This should've been done a few years ago.

I agree with what you're saying to a degree. It may be a temporary solution, but that's all it will be. The esteem and level of competition, plus lifestyle would still drag British players overseas. Their cap will always be much larger than ours as the money that is thrown at their National Game dwarfs ours. That will never change. I can't really offer any solutions, which is frustrating, except maybe that the RFL should make sure its grassroots and heartlands are hives of youth talent and the structures are in place to increase the playing pool for the UK as a whole.

We may want to accept that our game will be second fiddle to the NRL in scope, size, talent etc That doesn't mean we can't carve out a strong game in the UK but things really need to change drastically over the short and long term for that to happen.

Okay, let's do nothing then.

Because that seems to be the alternative solution from quite a few people in the game.

We're so good at finding reasons why new ideas won't work. Pity we can't employ our gray matter to suggest some that will.

Hey, if I had the answers I'd be running the RFL now wouldn't I?

The reason it's easy to spot flaws is because generally the ideas are not well thought out and finding reasons why they wont work is easy because the reasons practically slap you in the face. Truth is, there's no easy option. There will always be flaws. What the RFL need to do is pick the one with the least amount.

And equally it makes no sense to further shoot ourselves in the foot with bad ideas.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the merits and failings of ideas. But let's not disguise this by phrasing things hopefully - creating a 2x10 system is just bringing 6 clubs that may or may not be able to handle full time into that world, dropping 4 clubs down a level, which may be good for cutting their costs, but also will damage that area in terms of academy work, profile and so on. Add in to the mix of the above ten a few further teams who will simply be stuck in limbo, yo-yoing between the two, unable to have any solid ground for long run investment. We do not have the financial clout to make our second tier an adequate safety net, just a risk to those already struggling.

In terms of intensity and so forth, I can't see this move making a jot of difference. It's roughly the same players in the same teams, just with less varied opposition.

I'm not sure that what Peacock proposes could be called an easy option.

It would mean a radical restructuring of the game. But that is what we need, or something like it.

One way or another, we need to trim Super League down, to concentrate the talent and increase the competitiveness of every match - because that's another big problem. So many games are dead rubbers (and not just between top and bottom - we already seem to have an elite league within SL, which is no use to us).

I totally agree that raising the cap won't help in isolation, but we could make modifications to it - discounts on home-grown players, discounts on RU converts maybe, central top-up funds on marquee players etc. We could also get our heads together with Australia and NZ and work out a more exciting and attractive international programme. Maybe bump up the World Club Challenge into something meaningful.

I don't think any of these proposals, or others like them, are completely impractical.

While we'll never replicate the lifestyle available in Aus, we can certainly do more to make life in British RL more appealing for top players. But is the matter even being discussed at head office? I've heard nothing to the effect that it is.

We're already doing that.

The point about dead rubbers, I'm not convinced how bringing in relegation giving less security to the lower teams in the league is going to improve these clubs in the long term.

I'm not a big fan of P&R either, but I firmly believe that we need to slim SL down to some extent.

It that means dropping a couple of perennial underachievers into a lower division, so be it.

That's all very well but how do you decide on who? Would they be willing to drop down? How do you do it fairly? What about finances and sponsorship? Clubs dropping down are libel to lose income from sponsors who want the top league. Making an elite competition even harder to get into by solely grouping the top current teams together does nothing to improve the British game in the long run. It's great for six or so Clubs and that's it. The same as it is now.

Why will they be better games, because other clubs have more money to spend, I don't think so.
Or it may turn into 'oh it's HKR for the third time, no point going to this one and we always put 60 on them' (no disrespect to HKR and not saying that we do/will).

I firmly believe the problem is down to exposure and promoting the games to a wider audience, do we really want the M62 corridor to be the only place you find professional rugby league. Should we not be aspiring to having a professional club in all major cities, some people barely know the game exists let alone there are professional clubs playing it.

The more people we get watching games live or on tv the more of an attractive proposition we are to sponsors. Big sponsors are looking for big exposure and by reducing the market to a more selective area the more select the sponsor becomes, let's be ambitous and try to expand rather than contract.

I'd imagine that we'd sort out the elite 10-team league on much the same basis that we sort out the SL now, the only difference being we get tough with those clubs whose ambitions are plainly divorced from reality.

And no, it won't be fair, but if the outcome is Rugby League in Britain surviving as a professional sport, then I'm all for it.

Your living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that expansion sides are the way forward. Why try to flog what is essentially a proven recipe for disaster and ridicule? Do people not realise that every expansion team apart from Catalan have failed? We've been to the rugby mad area of South Wales, we've been to two of Europe's grandest cities in London and Paris and seen nothing of worth. We've been to Cumbria and seen nothing but a few ok seasons for Barrow in the championship. Do i need to go on?

There's a viable future for RL and it's in the hearts and minds of the heartland clubs. It's in the heads of guys like Lenegan, Simon Moran, Eamonn Mcmanus, Adam Pearson, Dr Kukash etc that will drive the game forward. People with passion for the game that want to see it progress and give the fans that love the game what they want.

I think people are sick to death of the way RL is going down the pan. Fans who've followed the game for years are turning down season ticket renewals and instead cherry picking games. There's a gulf in performance and match quality from week to week and people are voting with their feet.

These 'fair weather fans' are the people that we need to get back into the game on a more consistent basis. It's not rocket science that people are more willing to part with hard earned cash if they enjoy what they see, get value for money and have a sniff at success. The quickest way to achieve this is by reducing the teams to 10 and concentrating what is an already diluted player base between a smaller number of sides. If you then up the salary cap we'd stand more of a chance of keeping players.

You talk about having less games in a season means less revenue for the club. I flat out disagree with that. If every game was going to be an epic and close affair which was played to a high standard then we'd see our attendances swell. Take our home game vs Wire for example that should be the norm and not the anomaly when it comes to game standard in this country. Your telling me that more people wouldn't tune in and turn up if every game was played like that. There's zero reason why it can't be - Why can't Hull FC, Wigan, Leeds, Bradford, Warrington, Salford, Saints, Catalan & Huddersfield all be power house clubs? All have the backing to be massive but all are held back by what is in reality Wakefield, Hull KR, Cas & London.