https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/50319010

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/50319010

For me, it's about two things -

1. Should SL be able to attract top, marketable talents like SBW?

2. Should those top talents be able to earn their worth by playing in SL?

To me, the answer to both is yes.

I've no issue with a salary cap of sorts, but this salary cap is not the right one. It's two low, it's too flawed, it doesn't encourage standards to rise and it hasn't been successful in delivering on the two most oft-cited justifications for it - to level the playing field (there are still only four names on the trophy) and to encourage financial security.

Personally, I'd move to an FFP style system where the salary cap is linked to a percentage of club turnover. A hard cap is too restrictive, it makes it harder for clubs to attract (or keep) talent that they could overwise afford, it imposes real-terms pay cuts on the players and it sets a base standard (and a base cost of competing) that people object to seeing increased because it would increase their personal cost. An FFP model (say 60% of club turnover), would put a bigger emphasis on clubs to grow off the field if they want to compete on it.

He wants it lifting because Toronto have been swamped with enquiries from NRL players agents.

Of course it needs lifting. This is why the standard of SL is so woeful. The top clubs - St Helens, Leeds, Wigan and Catalans are being held back by all the other clubs who dont want these clubs spending more on players because its "unfair". Players are now earning far less than they did 15 years ago in real money terms. But hey, the cap must be working because Salford made the grand final

Its a joke.

There you go then.

Although the cap should have been increasing year on year since it's inception, with the marque player rule, there is nothing to prevent clubs signing a couple of super stars, just as Toronto have done with SBW and with the marque player rule in place, does there really need to be a fundamental change in the cap ?

It's clear why Noble wants a change, to benefit the club that he is currently involved with.
However, maybe the issue with Toronto, is that they are offering contracts which are OTT and therefore need additional cap space to allow them to bring in more players.
Part of having the cap is to "encourage" clubs to manage their squad intake and as we are some way behind NRL and Union, it almost doesn't matter how much the cap is increased, as we will still be in exactly the same position.

It's important to remember why the cap was put in place, to prevent clubs (like Toronto, Wigan, Widnes) from bankrupting the sport

I don't think the cap should be lifted. You've got your marquee exemptions for any big names you want to bring in.
How about we try and actually grow the sport in this country instead? Why not offer incentives for bringing players through your academy instead? And I mean far more attractive incentives than what we already have.

I don't want teams throwing money around when most clubs are only sustainable thanks to debts being underwritten by benefactors. That is not a healthy long term strategy for the sport. Any top NRL talent are here for nothing but money and once that dries up they will go back home and we will be left with nothing in their place.

As with any sport players go where the money is and why shouldn't they?

Absolutely agree and although Toronto are still trying to generate interest, after all they are playing a new sport, in a new city, what are they actually doing to begin to create their own stars of the future ?
After all, this is what would make them sustainable in the longer term.

That wasn't really my point. Of course they will follow the money. But you need a flow of new talent as well otherwise the sport will become unsustainable. Getting rid of the salary cap could lead to our junior talent missing out because clubs would just spend money on an already established player instead.

For me the code has been in dire need of a circuit-breaker to drag it up and out of the ever decreasing circle of poverty its in. Toronto are a risk, but to me one the game has to take if it doesn't want to end up a semi-pro feeder for union and NRL.

Exactly. We are bringing the standard down to the levels of those who cant spend the cap just to make it fair on them

You need to give it some time. A club in existence for 3 years can not be expected to start producing players its developed itself.



The problem I have with this argument is other than Wigan from what I see the rest of Super League haven't exactly been great at producing top quality talent.

You cant play players just for the sake of it. The sport in this country isn't producing good enough players period.

I would assume the quality of coaching in Australia compared to over here is night and day and Rugby Union in the UK likely has better levels of coaching than what we are getting in Rugby League as the quality of player is lacking.

Would changes in the cap really make a difference and see players at Junior levels not given chances to progress to 1st grade? I'm skeptical that's true. If players are good enough they will make it, a coach doesn't leave out a better player simply because he is young and English.