I think Wigan's period of dominance was bad for the sport, but things were different then. Wigan's success was essentially built on them being able to fund a largely full time squad in an era of largely part-time players, and on having the money and attractiveness to sign pretty much any player they wanted to plug gaps in that squad.



Since we now have a number of clubs with entire squads of full-time players, I don't think your reference back to that period is relevant. The divide between the rich and the poor isn't as marked as it was then, so I can't see the sport returning to an era of one team dominance any time soon. And I agree that the salary cap has helped even up the competition in the intervening years, and I wouldn't be in favour of it being scrapped (I don't think Marwan has ever spoken out in favour of scrapping the cap either). However, it's also strangling the competition. A quarter of the recently announced England squad no longer play in this country, and it would have been more had Sam Burgess and maybe Kyle Eastmond not gone to Union. A quarter of the top British players and [iall[/i of the top Australian players play outside of Super League. What does that say about the competition? That most of the top players play elsewhere, and we're happy to send more over to join them because we can't offer them anything here? Is that a good thing? What do you think we should do about it? One idea is to allow one player to not count on the cap in the hope that we can attract some big names to come over here (or, in the case of the British players, to stay here). What do you suggest?



You yourself said you went to see Wally Lewis play for Wakefield, and I'd guess Wakefield's attendances took a bit of a boost when he came over. Isn't that what we want? To see the best players over here? To see attendances increasing instead of the steady malaise we have now? Although you may not be able to afford to travel to away games, other people can, so, having had the privilege of seeing players like Wally Lewis in the flesh, why are you in favour of pulling up the drawbridge so that no-one else gets to see players of that calibre over here?



Over to you. It's your turn to be honest now.

I've said it many times but a Marquee signing by every club in the comp would be a good idea, the RFL/SL should insist however that an equal amount to that players wages is committed to be spent on that clubs youth development.



That way we get the best talent either coming or staying in the short term but there is also increased investment in the betterment of the game over here in the long run.



Does anyone have any figures if the crowds increased when we signed Gary Jack, who at the time was just about the best full back in the world and one hell of a brilliant player bettered only by Gibbo

I can't see what would be gained by linking marquee players to youth development. What would the extra money allow, say, Wigan or Leeds to do that they aren't already doing?



Youth development should be given more prominence by, say, stipulating that a certain percentage (33% or more) of each club's first team squad should have come through its own academy. It shouldn't need linking to the marquee player.

The concept is if a club wants a Marquee player they need to invest more into youth development. This would be over and above what is already spent, there is no scenario when a club can spent enough on youth development.

Well over 50% of Wigan's first team squad are products of their academy, and there can't be too many other clubs in Super League who haven't got one or more Wigan academy products in their squads. Leaving aside some vague notion of a club never being able to spend enough on youth development, what more do you think they can realistically do?



By linking youth development to the marquee player, you're forcing those clubs that already invest in youth development to invest even more - in all likelihood taking them way past the point where they experience diminishing marginal returns - because other clubs don't invest enough. Penalising them for the failures of others, effectively.



In addition, by making the marquee player 50% more expensive, you're restricting it to even fewer clubs and driving an even bigger wedge between the haves and the have-nots.



Youth development is massively important to the sport, and yes, more should be spent on it, but linking it to the marquee player doesn't seem to be a fair and equitable way of achieving it.