I'd go with koukash on his idea of 1 star player per club( 1 player not counting on cap) yes it's a bit of a gimmick, but think it would excite people, wouldn't make it unfair to the lesser clubs, and would bring some much needed publicity to our sport

I think it'll come in but I do wonder what it will do to team morale if a player comes in on big bucks and fails to perform or is injured most of the season. It would also mean 2nd best players at all clubs looking to become the marquee somewhere else. Can see it unsettling a lot of squads along the way.

I grew up in Hull, but I was born your side of the Humber

Yes possibly, but surely that's pretty much how it is now anyway, 1 player taking more of the cap than others, happens in most sports. And you'd probably find most clubs wouldn't even pay that star players wages, or not all of it anyway, the right player would attract new sponsors etc

It appeals to me because it is a simple exception to the rule. That complicated players in the England squad thing was/is impenetrable. I dunno if they sacked it off once Tomkins went to the NRL anyway.

Only a handful of clubs would sign a marquee player, as most understand the concept, I reckon. Koukash would probably sign SBW or someone. A few wouldn't be able spend more than they are now. Those in between would just discount their highest paid player from the cap and spread the saving around a handful of other senior players. It might slightly stem the flow of players to the NRL - but even of richest clubs can't sustainably compete for talent with the NRL. The dam of the cap isn't holding back a huge flood of spending - the money just isn't there.
It wouldn't make a lot of different quality wise, but after it has remained unchanged for a long time, it is one sensible way of letting the cap grow. Or they could just bung it up 5% - but that might be too simple.

I think it's the only sensible option, problem just raising the cap a little, would be it would just get shared between same player pool. We need to attract some top quality southern hemisphere players again

I honestly think it being shared around the same player pool is, with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions, what would happen with the marquee player rule. And that isn't such a bad thing. Bryn Hargreaves going off to lay paving or players being better off playing part-time and having a 'real' job, is as much a concern (well, nearly) as SL not being able to attract the best antipodeans (unless they've done something really grim).
Maybe the Willie Mason debacle puts me off - but even if he'd been good for us, one lesson definitely learned was that his name didn't add much to the gate.

I don't think we need to attract top NRL players, which is good because I don't we can at the moment, however the cap is set. A good game, isn't all about the quality of the play - that isn't even the most important factor imo. Fair enough, if players can't catch or run, it wouldn't be much of a spectacle - but a close, tense encounter between two indifferent teams, is more attractive to me than watching a great team blow away a merely good one.

Ha, HumBarton? Your Sixer tells me you should stick to herding sheep over Dumbarton bridge . #stretching_yourself

The crucial thing is that whatever arrangements are made in the future it mustn't undermine the sustainability of the clubs. Sports clubs are quite different from other businesses in that owners often ignore the critical business metrics like return on capital employed and instead bid up players saleries to try to win at all costs.

One plus of having AP in charge is that I'm sure he won't put the clubs future in peril by letting things get out of hand. Even if we were to be relegated he would make sure the business survived by slashing costs on big salary players and blooding the next generation in the first team. Who knows, it may be the medicine the club needs to go down, have a clear out of the old guard and start blooding the crop of U19s we have as a unit in the championship.

Not saying I agree with this, but everything else seems to have failed.

That was a bureaucratic error!