totally disagree with it. cap should stay as it is.

Disagree Tad the marquee allowance is needed if the SC isn't going to get a major increase/restructure imo.
One aspect i don't want brought in though is other Clubs "buying" a smaller clubs marquee allowance it should 1 allowance per Club if a Club doesn't take that up then it should just stay there should they get a new investor etc.
Totally agree G1 you don't replace JP the same goes for Sinny you get a different player to make their own impact and evolve your team just like we did when Senior left or Ali ,Webb etc.

Peacock is not irreplaceable, at least the 2015 version isn't.

Good post mate. Well said!

Could some one explain how the Marquee allowance would work? Is it an additional sum above and beyond the current cap designed to be spent on one superstar player, Can money from the "regular" salary cap also be used for the same player? There are pros and cons for the cap system and I can't decide whether the current cap helps or hinders our game overall. I do however find it depressing that so many SL Star performers seem to get skimmed off into the NRL or RU. However I wonder how many clubs could survive / remain competitive if the SL cap was raised to anywhere near NRL or RU levels.

I think its an additional sum above the cap. A one off allowance to sign a star player.

I like the idea of marque signing, but it's open for abuse. If not policed properly, a club could pay a player £500k for 1-2 seasons then 100k for the next 2 and sign another marque player. Or flip that round with a low first 2-3 years then a massive final year contract. Similar to what wigan did with fielden.

I'd prefer the homegrown (50% after 3 years) and long serving players (50% after 5 years at one club)to be reduced salary cap, this would then be fair and open and would still allow clubs to make 2-3 high end signings.

A RL mag in OZ are saying Leeds have made a bid for Widdop

[url=http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/super-league-giants-leeds-make-play-for-st-george-illawarra-dragons-star-gareth-widdop-20150411-1miwge.html?stb=fbHere[/url

That's the one

There should certainly be reward for bringing through your own players, with further 'discounts' if they become internationals.

Rugby League Week's "The Mole" reckons Leeds have zero chance of landing Widdop.

Who decides whether a player is "marquee" and does it have to be a signing or could it be a new contract for a current player.

For example, could Leeds us the "marquee" loophole to stop someone like Watkins, for example, being poached by the NRL or union?

Frankly, I am against it but I know I am in the minority who doesn't crave big name signings each season.

You contradict yourself in your own post.

Your quite correct on marquee, and I think the proposal is to nominate a player outside of the cap, based on the salary paid. So new or current.

Surely anyone would crave the Marquee each year, if meant keeping of losing a player?

Why? Where do I say That I would like Leeds to use this to keep a player? I asked a question.

I'd certainly rather not lose a player like Watkins but nor do I think making him a "marquee" player would be good for the team. In fact, it would go against everything the team has been built upon over the last decade. So, no, I wouldn't crave it even if it meant losing a talented young player.

We've lost players before to Union and NRL and we will lose them again. But the players that want to be here (like Watkins and Hall) are here for the right reasons and help build what we've built.

The marquee player rule is one for the rich owners like Moran, Lenegan and Koukash, who don't like and aren't used competing on a level playing field.

It's one for those chairmen who want to buy rather than build success.

Frankly, it's got nothing going for it other than making a small handful of players much richer and a handful of rich men more self-important than they already are.

That sums it up for me. Having a level playing field is great for the competition in this country in a way but it does mean that our best talent just likely to be drawn to the nrl or union.

The best the rfl can do is support the clubs who can't afford the salary cap, to try and stay more fansand generate more money in the game

I think it does create a possibility of dressing room dissension when one guy is picked for the marquee player role, especially if you have a few players who would be worthy of the spot.

I don't think it means one page has to be paid a vast amount more just that you can nominate a page to not count. You could have your four top players all earning the Dame because one of them is counted as the marquee player. That's how I would implement it anyway

level playing field means everyone spending at Wakefields level is that really what the salary cap should do?

I disagree. Level playing field is everyone having the opportunity to spend the same. The likes of Wakefield who do not seem to be able to make the best of their lot should not hold back the rest in the country. Id be interested to see which clubs doesn't what, and what they could spend. At they point at which more than 8 teams can afford to spend full cap it should be increased.

Should be used not only to keep the playing field level but to give clubs something to aim to, including the bigger clubs

Or radical action to more efficiently use and increase the available money in SL, a smaller number of teams, consolidation of poorer clubs to produce an entity with the financial resources to compete. New franchise(s) Cumbria? I don't necessarily promote any of the above as an answer. But I do have concerns that if SL doesn't find ways to move forward with a critical mass of viable competitive clubs, we risk a tail slide into oblivion.

Still at least we won today

I recall Alan Tait's autobiography mentioning the Leeds players disquiet in the dressing room before the 1995 Cup Final about who was and wasn't getting Super League Loyalty payments. That harmonious dressing room made for a great Leeds diplay that day.

I recall Alan Tait's autobiography mentioning the disquiet in the Leeds dressing room before the 1995 cup final about who was and wasn't getting a Super League loyalty contract. That "harmonious" dressing room produced a great display that day.

our players deserve to be richer. The finances of a club are the responsibility of the owners, not the players, they shouldnt accept less nor should they need to go to RU or Australia to earn their worth.

If a clubs owner cannot be trusted to negotiate a fair deal with David Howes or ShowmethemoneyUK then the SC isn't going to stop them running their club in to the ground.

If you want a game where there is a level playing field in terms of spending there are plenty of amateur sports worth your attention. If you want elite professional sport it should be pretty obvious someone got to pay for that. I don't see why a cabal of owners should be able to collude to make sure its their employees who pay for it.