Only applies to players from outside the English game, and it's in addition to the existing rule where the top earner is outside the 'cap'

I wonder how they dreamed up the idea ?

The rfl need to get there head out of the sand, and wake up. before it is too late.

I agree, we're getting further left behind every time, RL used to lead the way with thinking up and then implementing ideas like this. Now we just think them up and not bother and implement the daft ones instead

.



Now the Sky deal has more money in it, the RL and SL Clubs should act and get the marquee player rule passed in the next month in my opinion.

The problem with that is that with us having no quota (if we are not over already) spots available we'd only be able to get UK players, and you'd think that SL clubs wouldn't allow there own best British players too leave.



That is unless the marquee player wouldn't count towards the quota cap also.="

Now the Sky deal has more money in it, the RL and SL Clubs should act and get the marquee player rule passed in the next month in my opinion.'"

I think it's important for the whole of SL that at least the marquee exemption is brought in as swiftly as possible to try and keep pace with RU (and the NRL) regardless of our ability at the moment to take advantage of it, I'm sure the Doc would find a way to make it work for us, even if it meant that it was 2016 before we did so. I'd also say that to work properly it would need an exemption from the non-fed rule too.



I also think the salary cap should increase at the same time (puts tin helmet on), it's simply not making good financial sense as a sport to keep it at the same level anymore and the argument that some clubs can't afford to spend up to the cap is not a viable reason to do so. My reasoning is that if you don't attract talent, then you don't attract crowds and you don't attract lucrative sponsorship ergo the net income to the game reduces, clubs can afford less therefore supporting the argument that the salary cap needs to stay the same. Ultimately, it's a self defeating argument and could lead to an ever decreasing revenue stream.



Even if a SC increase would mean that you'd end up paying the same players more money, I still think that would be a short term effect but the long term effect would be that players would find SL a more attractive proposition. Also, to counter the inevitable argument about paying current players more to do the same thing, I'm baffled as to why do some folk think that current players get paid enough already, surely even RL players deserve a pay rise every so often?

Funny how we're all in favour of a rise in the salary cap these days.....

To be honest, I've been in favour of a cap rise for longer than we've been cashed up, as I said in my post earlier, the whole game needs it now to kick start the economics of the sport.



I also said in a post on the VT a couple of months ago the same thing that a salary cap rise wouldn't have made any difference to our plight as the Wilkinson regime fell apart in front of us. The upshot being we couldn't compete anyway under the current cap, so an increase at that time wouldn't have made us poorer but I accept that it could have hastened our demise!

with all the "talent" you have signed, you dont have the crowds.... so how does that thinking work then? how much more do you need to spend to get 10k through the doors?

Seeing as none of the so called big clubs attracted over 8k for a play off game this weekend, perhaps we aren't doing too bad considering our poor season.



Widnes made the top 8 and only averaged 5600, yet this barely gets a mention.

I love the way you've taken one small phrase out of that whole post and then applied it to the situation at Salford so deliberately making mischief and not debating the topic at hand.



My post is talking about the game as a whole not just Salford, it's about the whole package of Super League, the rest of RL and the long term future of the game as a fully professional sport at the top level. It's about competing financially with a rival (but inferior) code that now filches all our best talent because we refuse to level the playing field financially for fear that a club will go bust. If we carry on like we are, it won't be long before fringe SL players will need to go part-time and before you know it, we are no longer a fully professional sport.

if we carry on? its been like this since 1995 with the NRL and RU taking our talent pool. not stopped RL being as awesome as it always has been. other players always step up and fill the void.



as for my original comment; im not sure why youve claimed that. you put that fans will be attracted to talent as will sponsors, yet your team made huuuuge signings with 3 names that most clubs would of been happy to sign just 1 of (Hock, Locke and Chase) let alone the others. yet this hasnt attracted the fans, or the sponsors. so how many superstars does a team require to be able to atract these sponsors and fans?

Bloody hell mate - Chase injured in game 1 and then missing for much of the season, Hock great for the first 3 or 4 games then a tad iffy then decides to take out the ref and banned for the rest of the season and Locke arrived in time for the last half dozen games, plays 1 blinder (Hudds away), misses the next couple injured then plays the last couple of meaningless fixtures while clearly not fit and carrying a few pounds extra.

Yep, that's going to pull the fans in alright!!!!

Not sure if this idea would work sign a Marquee player pay him 5 times more than any other player and half the team buy into it and half think sod this he is getting x pounds more than me.It happened at Wakey years ago Wally Lewis great player £1000 per game paid by a fan not the club but half the team had the sod it let him do the graft and take the stick why should I on £90 for a win.

You're right there mate I remember it well but Wally was still fantastic on his own and I went to some games just because he was playing. Would be interesting to see if there was any dramatic increase in trins attendances for those games but FWIW I don't think 1 player would make that much difference now. Strangely enough I know some opposition fans went to games hoping to see Wally fall flat on his face. He never did.

In a nutshell, the best argument for the marquee player.

Its no use though if you are relegated and loose the rest of the good players and lower crowds at games following season as happened at Wakey.

Similar has happened at Salford, and quite recently too. However, a long build from the bottom up is unlikely to be the best option for Salford and Marwan either. We need a decent team, and quick.

Wally Lewis played for Wakefield when most British players were part-time, so, inevitably, the pay differentials between Lewis and the rest of the squad were massive. That's not the case any more. Such pay differentials as there already are aren't going to be exacerbated to any great extent by the introduction of a marquee player. As newgroundb4wakey - who is obviously a huge fan of marquee player rule, despite previously arguing against it - the marquee players draw the punters in, and that's what we want isn't it?

That's not an argument against marquee players though is it? You could get relegated whether you've got a marquee player or not, and the effects are the same: you lose players and attendances drop. Let's not disappoint newgroundb4wakey. He's clearly jonesing for the marquee player rule.

A completely different era John and completely different circumstances for me. Back then as you say there were no contracts (Wally apart) and it was mostly winning or losing pay and expenses for the elite. At the time I had a well paid job and young sons who had just started playing junior rugby. I would take them any where within reason to nurture their interest in rugby league. I'm a pensioner now and I wouldn't be able to afford to travel very far from home to away matches even if Sonny Bill or Slammin' Sam were playing for the opposition. Give me an honest answer to this :- did you get fed up of Wigan winning every thing before they self imploded and went bust. Thats why the salary cap was brought in to prevent teams going bust and even up the competition. For me the salary cap is just starting to work and this season has been the most open ever and a true test of the coaches ability. If you didn't have your current rich owner I doubt if you'de want the marquee signing. It would be a backward step for me but hey ho thats what forums are for.

p.s. The one thing that stood out for me when watching Wally was his 30 metre flat bullet pass. I'd never seen any thing like it but neither had any of the Trin players and no one could catch them much to Wally's disgust.

"did you get fed up of Wigan winning every thing before they self imploded and went bust"



No ...

apart from a bit of smugness as a salford fan re a couple of matches, I expected a smashing when we played Wigan and good games for the rest of the season.

Also, I feel the game and finance has moved on. To use a parallel sport, I could not see soccer, back in the 80's, affording the type of wages they have now.

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.