They usually cover three different topics at roughly 10 minutes each so don't expect in depth analysis.

That's the point isn't it. The Salary Cap should not be there for clubs to spend money they don't have to try and reach it.
If clubs were more prudent and actually set themselves a realistic limit as to what they could afford to spend on salaries, rather than just seeing the top line and thinking "we can spend £1.65M on salaries", then the game would be in a healthier state.

There needs to be some structure in place to allow the less rich clubs to retain their junior players without them being poached by those who can spend the full cap, then teams could be more realistic with the amount they can afford to spend.


As much as I would love Wakey to spend the full salary cap and bring in some real top quality players, I don't want that to be at the expense of bankrupting the club. At least Andrew Glover has set these limits and if our income doesn't rise to meet expectations I hope that he will reduce those targets accordingly. Better to build slowly and have a team in 5 years than to go for it with money you don't have and lose the lot.

Absolutely agree

I think the problem with the salary cap is that poorer clubs feel obliged to try and spend as near to the cap as they can so that they can get browny point ticks on the franchise bandwagon and ensure their future in sooperdooper league. The bigger clubs get frustrated and would like to spend more on players but are being held back by the small clubs.

It's often a bit of a gamble on projected success and crowd figures, so somewhat dangerous. I think Salford were anticipating much higher attendance at their new ground. It's tempting to spend a little more than you can really afford in the hope that it will buy you success and get you away from the bottom of the table poverty trap, but someone has to finish bottom each year.

To some extent it's stopped the boom and bust of P&R, but it's not promoted growth as much as was hoped.

Hopefully, AG is still looking longer term and at the bigger picture.

When I watch a piece of 'investigative' journalism, I expect to see some facts and for some actual 'investigation' to have taken place; I saw very little of either.

For example, 12 of the 14 clubs were reported to be in the red to the tune of £68million - how much of that is down to director's loans, which are an entirely legitimate form of 'debt' that will never be called in and may well be on the books to help the tax position of both the lender and the loanee? Equally, how much of that £68million is accounted for by those clubs who have delivered new stadia, putting them in a position of debt, but with a rather tasty assett against which that debt can be offset?

The 'academic' from Sheffield Hallam did a crude and amateur job of 'analysing' the finances of SL clubs - essentially by adding up some numbers from the public accounts; some posters on RL fans have done a much better job over the years.

There is certainly cause for concern in the way that some clubs have been run, but hardly the 'abyss' that the acedemic reluctantly referred to; a much more appropriate piece would have been the important role that RL clubs play in WY communities, the struggles they face in straightened economic times and the economic and wellbeing benefits their continued existence brings to the areas in which they operate. That would have been a good springboard for the new season, but it wouldn't have been very sexy.

I agree with the depth of investigation on view, I would assume that as an academic he would have something more substantial than you claim to back up his report, although how much of that would have been viewable and practice to shoe horn into such a small piece I'm not so sure.
There has been enough evidence of crisis in the last couple of years and perhaps more difficulty ahead for some clubs to add more weight to his argument than to support the RFLs though I would argue.
Hetherington and Hudgell seem level headed enough folk to also add weight to his report.
One thing is for certain as you pointed out, that much of what was aired has been reported or rumoured on sites such as this over the last few years, his view is very similar to ones on here, what beggars belief in my opinion is that the RFL and their franchising experts aren't/weren't aware of such difficulties at clubs which further detracts from Blake Solly's comments.
When I see a piece of franchising, I expect to see some transparency and honesty otherwise I won't necessarily believe what they are saying or what they may say in the future.
I'm still with the prof on this one.