Sorry, might not be reading it properly, but how could they have 3? surely its only 1 player whos on not home grown, on say 400k and only 150k would count on cap

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I saw a reference to non homegrown players and presumed it meant multiples of players but it's probably just meaning 1 per club

The main item on the agenda will be the issue of marquee players

Think that's the confusing sentence, referring to players. Think it must mean , home grown or overseas. If it is for just one player, I'm all for it. Multiple players and its got disaster all over it

Just smacks to me of the RFL panicking again for a short term gain.
As an example, Salford will no doubt go and try and sign a marquee player, yet their academy is just about as bad as it can get.
The RFL have short changed the game for years now (giving away free naming rights for the competition is just one example)., and this just smacks of short termism.Now with relegation, clubs have even less incentive to invest in academy structures, and invest whatever Sky money they do have into overseas players.

Think people are over reacting, will it make that much difference! just means every club will get a bit of discount with a marquee player, how can it not be a good thing, don't understand all the negativity, If it means the super league can attract top class players again, or means we can keep hold of our top class players, brilliant. Think the RFL are doing something good for once

It's nothing to do with discounts, it means clubs like Salford, say, could spend £1m over the cap on just one player.
Current players on high salaries could be tempted to move on. I know it's only a handful, but the richer clubs will benefit.
At the moment, the cap protects clubs, but simply trying to keep their best players will inevitably mean that some clubs will overspend.

I know what your saying, but still think its an over reaction, they will still be a cap, if Salford want to spend 1 million over cap on 1 player, so what! I just cant see it happening, I honestly do not see 1 player, who will still take up 100k or 150k on the cap making a negative impact. Think it will bring some excitement for the fans and super league. If Salford want to pay paul gallen 1m a year to play in super league brilliant, means we get to see him play in our competition, will it make Salford the best team, I don't think so. If Hull announced Sam Burgess as our marquee signing for 2016, would anyone have a problem with that? I'd absolutely love it, and so would the majority of fans, the ticket sales would increase, shirt sales etc! Sam Burgess just me dreaming by the way, im not starting a rumour.

It all seems totally unnecessary, to me, anyway.

Supposing we did sign Sam Burgess, Rovers could then tempt Liam Watts away and there's little we could do about it.
At least at the moment you can offer players what they're worth, within reason, and it's comparable with what other clubs would pay.

Fully agree. The wording's a bit confusing though.

Liam Watts isn't going to be Rovers marquee signing , or any other super league teams, but lets say Leigh decided to make Watts they marquee signing after promotion, how much are they really going to pay him over the 150k? thens it purely down to the player if he wants to go for the money, its a very unrealistic scenario anyway. But I do quite like the thought of say Leigh tempting the Wigan captain with a marquee offer! Assuming Sam Tomkins is Wigans marquee player. I think its exciting and innovative. I can see peoples arguments against it, but Im yet to hear one that as convinced me its not a good idea.