Multi-talented: Panthers captain Jamie Soward. Credit:Getty Images There is one solution to the problem: sooner or later we have to publish players' salaries. Fans don't know how much players are being paid but they are expected to believe everything is above board. It's like we know there's a speed limit but we just have to trust the police when they say no-one's breaking it. It's time to tell us exactly how fast each car is going. If the NRL and clubs are serious about the salary cap then publishing salaries is the only way to go. Now, some of you will say: "how would you like it if your salary was published?" One, I have tried to get it in previous columns and the Herald won't print it. Follow me on Twitter – I talk about my finances all the time. Two, sports journalism does not market itself on the basis of uncertainty of results. Some papers have six rugby league writers on massive money, others have one or two on a pittance. You know that.

Printing salaries won't stop paper bag payments. In a practical sense, it won't stop determined, orchestrated cheating. But it will improve public confidence and increase pressure on clubs to pay "realistic" salaries. If a star player is announced at being paid just $60,000, people will be suspicious. The media might finally catch someone in that McDonald's carpark because they'll be able to narrow their inquiries to those earning unusually low salaries. The people around the player – friends, relatives, bank managers, etc – will start to ask questions if he's spending more than he is allegedly making. We have great uncertainty of results at the top end of the NRL this season – but let's not forget there are clubs like Canberra spending a lot of money for not much return. I reckon they'd welcome the publishing of salaries. They stopped believing in the tooth fairy a long time ago. A theatre unto himself

Jamie Soward is the most interesting personality involved in the finals. Soward is steeped in footy culture and loves the theatre of the NRL so much that sometimes he almost can't wait to retire and be a pundit. He tries to do both at once. Here's a couple of things he said on Triple M on Sunday night. "Last time we played (Sydney Roosters), I thought we played a little bit silly, a bit childish".

And: "You have to be in the top four to win the comp this year". Many commentators have said that, not so many players. Question time open Like anyone who enjoys their job, I like talking about mine. But sometimes I feel my ruminations about journalism and the changes it's undergoing fall on deaf ears. That's why I welcome the comments made at the bottom of Sunday night's Set of Six, about whether or not Fox Sports' Jimmy Smith should have asked 19-year-old Luke Brooks about the future of coach Michael Potter.

Rudy and Scoty said it was unfair to ask Brooks. The point I want to make is this: a general reporter can walk up to anyone in the street and ask him or her anything. If I worked on the news desk, I could go up to a 15-year-old at Cronulla beach and ask him about Islamic extremism. But a sports journalist cannot ask a highly-paid footballer, whose wages come from media rights, about who his coach should be next season? That's completely ridiculous. As clubs attempt more and more to "control the message", journalists are being asked to accept conditions that their colleagues on other rounds would never contemplate. Plenty of players have spoken out in favour of their coaches being retained this year – look at the support for Anthony Griffin in Brisbane. Even at 19, you should have a mind of your own.

Clubs can do their best to mandate what players "should talk about". It's not our job to help them. Before a sportswriter agrees not to ask a question, or not to approach someone directly, or to leave a training session that is clearly visible from the street, he should ask if his colleagues elsewhere at the paper or TV station would do any such thing. No space to waste More comments now. Rudy said my account of the Josh Reynolds incident in Set of Six was "garbled". That's because it was clearly described in my match report. Space is limited in Set of Six, repeating things from other stories is avoided where possible, Joe the Expat didn't like the "silent review" idea for tries. But you know if there was a fumble when the replay comes up. When you see the replay, so will the video ref – and he'll make the same decisions the coach halfbacks make!

Within 24 hours of last week's Discord, the death of the Lions tour – and it's replacement with a Kiwi trek to the UK – was confirmed. Friendly_Raptor says Great Britain (the team, not the place) is a waste of time. But England Knights are currently stealing players from Ireland, Scotland and Wales – I want to see players representing those countries without it ruining their chances of playing Australia and New Zealand. Turbodewd, Australia was not going to play France; New Zealand was. Stojo warned "the annual Australia v NZ test match will become a Polynesia A v Polynesia B fixture". I think that was a pretty good comment – although Origin qualification rules are being tightened. Akari said I "should be encouraging people" to pronounce Polynesian names correctly. I was simply repeating an anecdote about how three brothers pronounce their own names – not taking a position on how anything should be pronounced.

James, your perspective about league not needing international play is Australia-centric. New Zealand needs it for finance and England needs it for publicity and sponsorship. Only Australia can do without internationals. Jacko spoke about rugby union expansion but the pace of expansion in league is impressive, even if it started off a poor base. In the mid-eighties, five countries played rugby league – now there are 40. That's a rate of expansion that would give most sports a run for their money. Loading Forum. Podcast.