People keep talking about the 'low standard' of SL currently, but is that really the case anyway?



From where I'm sitting, and thinking back to (say) the 2008 WC, when the Aussies looked like they'd score every time they got near our try-line, it seems to me that England are more competitive relative the Aussies and Kiwis than we've been in a long time.

I suppose the real question now is how do you define a Marquee Player? Is there an age restriction on them? A minimum number of international caps or competition wins? Or the number of individual honours received?

I have read this whole thread and I seem to get the gist of it. The gist being that everyone is signing Cooper Cronk.

Well if people are happy watching say Wigan,Leeds, Saints and Warrington win every thing and eventually be the only clubs playing each other then fine.



It's progress I suppose but i doubt if the majority will be interested. It's the way I see the professional game going in this country.

Another person who doesn't seem to have read/understood the rule. There isn't a "definition", it doesn't need defining, it's just a cap exemption for a single home-grown player earning more than £100k or a single non-home-grown player earning more than £175k.

I suppose we can expect a raft of rumours about players moving to RU or the NRL started by their agents in a bid to secure them the "marquee" status and a nice pay rise.....

I don't see a problem with this.



I'd like to see the reserves come back though - so many young players are being lost because they're not given time to develop their games in their early 20s.

I'm cautiously in favour of the rule.

It allows those clubs who can to compete with the NRL and Union for at least some of the top players.



One of the biggest benefits in my opinion is that it opens up more sponsorship opportunities for the marquee player at each club as they're currently restricted by the salary cap.

Yeah, because all the best English players have been improving their game in the NRL!

Joe public would be even harder pressed to name an overseas player I think. If they aren't interested in the domestic game they'll be even less interested in Aussie or NZ games IMO

There are about 400 top flight standard RL players in the NRL. 14% of these play at international/inter-state level for, NZ, NSW/QLND (AKA Australia) and they should be considered the ELITE. I very much doubt that any CURRENT Maroon or roach will be tempted away, the same with a current Kiwi, so that leaves the level BELOW elite who might be tempted to come to the UK. But then, if you're nearly a pick for Origin or on the Kiwis training squad, do you give up on rep football? I don't think so, leaving us with the third tier.



400 NRL players and we've discounted 102 of them already.



I believe that this Marquee allowance will be used to bring the Billy Slaters/SBW's of the game over at the end of their careers in the hope that if you're paying them 400k a year, they sell the 20,000 tickets to cover their wages.

People act like we didn't have marquee players before, like we didn't get good value out of plenty of big names before. You think Garry Hetherington isn't confident in the value of bringing in Ali Lauitiiti? or Saints think it might not have been worth paying loads for Jamie Lyon?



When the exchange rate was more favourable, and when we had a Salary Cap that was about a third bigger in real terms than it is now, we brought in big players and it was virtually unheard of for us to lose a player to the NRL.



Because of inflation, since the cap came in in 2001 we have lost ground on the amounts we pay. Under this rule A club could pay 1 player about £1.25m a year and not be spending any more in real terms yet apparently it will both kill the game through overspending and not bring in anyone of note.

Aren't we taking a knife to a gun fight here? This exemption was announced on a day when Daly Cherry Evans signed a contract extension reportedly worth around $1.5m a season.



I'm not against this rule, but I do think that there is a danger of it becoming a blunt instrument. If we work on the basis that the best way to attract, develop and retain talent is to pay it more (and that's debatable), then lets work at bringing more revenue in the game, across all of our full-time clubs, to facilitate that, rather than creating "loopholes" in the salary cap that only a handful of clubs can exploit.



Having the RFL tinkering with the salary cap rules doesn't address the core problem which is that the game lacks cash. Placing greater demands on the owners and commercial managers at our clubs to generate more revenue from ticketing, commercial partnerships, merchandising and hospitality is the way that we can ultimately reward our players in a way that is sustainable.



Does Wigan signing Tompkins improve Hull KR's ability to sell sponsorship, or will Leeds signing Gareth Widdop stop Wakefield from hemorrhaging money?

No but it may help gain more sponsors and media intrest and in turn attract more viewers. Which will put us in a better position when negotiating future viewership rights for our competitions.



We need to strive to be the best, and pandering to the lowest few clubs is not the way to get better and expand.



Man city or Chelsea don't have to ask Burnley and Palace whether or not they can buy Fabregas or not.



I do agree we need some limits, football is not the model we want. But the SC needed to grow years ago we need to attract and maintain the best talent.