www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480 Do you agree?

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480 Do you agree?

Would agree if clubs played in sensible and didn't extend their salary more than they could afford just ebcause they have more cap room. Got a feeling we'd find a few clubs in sticky places.

Alternatively, maybe a similar thought by the RFL when looking at RU. Players with international promise/skills are part sponsored by them?

Lose a few players to union OR create an less competitive playing field by allowing richer clubs to spend far more than less wealthy clubs can afford OR bankrupt clubs by allowing them spend what they can't afford to keep up with the Jones'.

Option two would be better for Warrington, but I'm sticking with option one.

Nice idea, Philth, but been done before, under a different name
We spat the dummy out, when Briers wasn't covered by this
Farrell was covered by it, and when the cover ran out, he legged it to the 3 point code

Strange how Sporting Life thinks that they come back with tales between their legs, not their tails.

If the RFL were to have centrally contracted players they would need to be very evenly distributed between the clubs.

Not easy.

I think it would only benefit the richest clubs really. We have to be careful here, Just because the cap doesn't rise doesn't mean that players don't get pay rises. By rights it works out better for the other clubs. The not so rich clubs can then pay decent money to those who leave the clubs that are up to cap. We sort of did this four or five years ago. We had players on the books that were never worth the value we were paying.

Eastmond could have stayed in league if he wanted to and I bet if he touted himself about the Superleague clubs for next season he would have ended up with similar wages to what he will be getting next season. He went for the international set up and all the attention.

Does anyone know what the average salary is of a 'first team regular' rugby league international against the equivalent in Union?

You will never know what they get paid. They will get all sorts of extras in the other code. That doesn't come out of the clubs salary cap. How big are union clubs squads these days?

Everyday is a school day, Thanks.

I was just thinking outloud really. Before any cap raise I'd like to see more marketing done by clubs and the RFL to get more bums on seats (or feet on concrete) so they could sustain any increase in outlay

According to [url=http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/07/28/challenge-cup-triumph-puts-warrington-wolves-into-profit-92534-26944440/this[/url, the club was barely in the black in our first trophy winning season in 35 years.

Unless the clubs can increase their revenue streams either individually and/or from centrally sourced/negotiated funds, then no, I do not agree. It is not a sustainable business model for clubs to lose money every year and rely on board members to keep pumping in the cash.

Raising the cap has more bad consequences that good ones. An even competition (providing the overall standard rises, and does not fall to 'lowest common denominator') is best for the sport as a whole. No doubt Pies, Rhinos ourselves and one or two others would thrive on a bigger cap ( at least in the short term ) but I don't think that's good for the game or the clubs concerned over a longer period.