The RFL have probably done it in good will to keep one of our top stars after two leave in quick succession, probably the same way they relaxed the quota rule only to see it abused like this will no doubt be.

I only Hull don't.

No problem in principle with it. Timing wise it isn't perfect, but neccessarily so I suppose. It is the complexity of the rules that are approaching the farcical IMO.

Overseas players - club-trained, fed- and non-fed... and then quota rule on top of that. All with numerous exemptions.
One of the big advantages of the flat-cap was its simplicity. Now you can have another £100k, but only if you meet certain criteria, and whether you do or not will alter as often as the England squad(s). And is it there to encourage the production or acquisition of England players?

The RFL have to consider binning obsolete rules and simplifying the ones they keep.

Like I say the rules are put out there in good faith, i doubt many would stand up in court, it's when others abuse them the RFL has no where to go.

The salary cap is agreed by all the SL clubs, not mandated by the RFL, I can only assume that all the clubs have agreed this dog's breakfast of a modification to the salary cap.

It was always within Wigan's remit to solve any problem with retaining Sam Tomkins. If they thought he was worth £1 million a year, then pay him that much. All they then have to do is explain to the rest of the squad that they'll have to divvy up the remaining £650k among them.

There was absoolutely no need for any dispensations, unless the object was to further muddy the already murky waters surrounding the salary cap?

Of course there was, Tomkins could have left with his brother if he didn't agree a pay rise.

What can Wigan do? Tell the rest of the squad they've got to take a pay cut?

Two different issues really. Clubs will pursue their own self-interest by stretching the rules.

The rules themselves shouldn't require the IQ of the character you use as your username and avatar to interpret.

The time has come to do away with the quota, and replace it with the non-fed rule.

If you get the £100k on the cap whether you produce England internationals like Wigan or merely buy them like Warrington, just raise the cap to £1.75 million for everyone. This just seems like complexity for its own sake. If it is to convince us that there was a significant rationale beyond keeping Tomkins in SL, it hasn't worked. That's fine - 'we're losing players, let's raise the cap' is a legitimate view.

The quota rule was supposed to be down away with by now, others challenged it and got it changed.

I can see both sides of the cap raise argument tbh, but it seems like they didn't want clubs with a extra overseas space getting a extra 100k and ringing up aus agents.

fx>Sound of Neil Hudgell replacing the telephone hand set and putting away his address book after it being open at "R" for "Riolo". <fx

A move in the right direction but it seems a bit rushed. Another £100k isn't going to stop the marquee players from leaving. The cap needs a major overhaul imo. Hudges suggestion that clubs should be allowed to break the cap if they pay a levy is an interesting one.

I'd go for some radical changes. Remove club trained players from the cap completely, reduce the cap to between £1.0m - £1.2m & scrap the overseas limits (they're not working anyway & a reduced cap & increased earning potential elsewhere will have a natural effect on the overseas numbers). Basically you would only be capped on bought in players & be able to offer a market rate to keep your own juniors.

If a player fancies testing himself either on a bigger international stage (union) or in a stronger comp (NRL) I'm not sure this will make the slightest bit of difference.