No I don't know much about union having been a pupil at John Rigby which only played union, then played union until I was 29 and had to quit because of injury. Joel is not a high calibre centre in either code. He will go okay but won't be worth £400k per year to Saracens.

There are plenty of things the RFL could do as opposed to the clubs. They could change the rules so players earnings from outside their club wages did not count on the cap. So players being sponsored, any advertising earnings they could get and now image rights are not a tax dodge the RFL could remove that from the salary cap calculation and let players earn money from that and so on. Basically the cap would be based on what the club paid the players not what the players earned so that would address your concern of clubs not being able to afford higher wages because they would not be paying them any more then they are now.

Former England captain Bill Beaumont got banned for life from the sport by the IRB because he wrote an autobiography including (obviously) his RU exploits and dared to earn money from the sales. (The ban was rescinded after they went pro in 1995 and he is now on the IRB himself). The idea RU was basically a pro sport in all but name pre-1995 is nuts.

Dave, Dave, Dave you really must think these things through. How would such a proposal help Wakefield et al?

It probably would help them anyway if you think about it. If a player was earning money from activities such as selling his image rights or whatever from outside his club salary he would bring that income with him to Wakey. They would get a more valuable player without having to pay him a higher salary.



It's not a new idea either. This is what Bradford got done on the salary cap for a few years back. Harris was being sponsored by a company and they had an advert either in the program or round the ground. I don't think the advertising mentioned Harris at all but the fact they advertised with Bradford was enough for them to be judged to have a link to the club and so any money paid by them to Harris had to count on the cap as income earned and that is why they went over the cap.



Reforming these rules has got to be the easiest and cheapest way for the game to let its players earn more money which it definitely needs to do and provided it is clear clubs can't sponsor players etc then it won't cost them a penny more in wages than they pay out now.

It is also then allowing the rich clubs to pull even further away from the less well off. Or is that what you are looking for, a four-team super-duper league?



You assert that it will cost the clubs nothing, who are you trying to kid? Who would sponsor a player and then expect nothing from his employer in return?



It is also reducing what clarity we now enjoy and making it even more difficult to find those clubs that are using underhand methods to remunerate players

time for the smaller clubs in the league to get their fingers out or go to the championship where their finances/ambitions would be more suitabale

I'd expect that the reason that isn't allowed is that it's a way to get round the cap. If DW still owned Wigan, what would stop him paying Trent Barrett, Andy Farrell, Andrew Johns, Billy Slater, Adrian Morley...etc.... £150K each on the salary cap and then DW Gym sponsoring each one of them for another £150K?

well there would be a link between the club and the sponsor so that wouldnt be acceptable but if say, Asda decided to sponsor Sam Tomkins and pay him £200k/year for promotional work then i dont see the problem

So you don't think anyone would be interested in sponsoring Chase at Cas for example? This idea would make it easier for smaller clubs to hold onto their players without having to break their own bank. The rich clubs would not have a higher salary cap than the less well off.







Well for a start it is not just sponsorship that I said should not count against the cap but things like product endorsments as well. So if for example England players got a deal with a boot manufacturer why would that cost the clubs anything? Going back to your question on sponsorship I really do not know what you mean by it being a cost to clubs if a player is sponsored. RU clubs do this as a matter of course and they would not be doing it if it was a net cost to them.







What? It is dead simple if you read the rules there is a list of things that count towards a players salary cap value and all I am suggesting is some of them are removed from that list and put in anther one that is titled "Allowable earnings" or whatever you want to call it. There is nothing unclear about that and if there are other methods being employed at the moment to get around the cap doing as I suggest won't make a jot difference to that one way or the other.



You previous objection was that raising the cap wasn't affordable and I have given you a suggestion to raise players wages that doesn't require that to happen. You have come up with two spurious arguments (sponsorship is not free and my idea lacks clarity) which I reckon you really had to struggle to think of

but I suspect your first objection is where it is all at for you. The magic level playing field and I don't even think that is as black and white as you suggest.



I think the time has past where we can limit what top players earn while we wait for the likes of Wakefield to get their act together so they are on a par financially with the like of Wigan, Leeds, Saints, Wire and Hull (with their new owner). Some clubs have been given literally decades to improve and fail to do so year on year even with the salary cap.



The alternative is to let inflation inflate away the wages of our players to the extent the sport will have to revert to being a semi-pro sport. It is either that or let them earn more money where they can.