That's a fantasy assumption to make. It really is going to be no different to before. Leeds have had that exact same scenario, as have other clubs. You still have 1.925 million to play with, not just the £100k you speak of.

What do you think Sinfield in his prime, or more appropriately Peacock, Ali, Webb and Buderus were earning? surely you don't think the same as Kirke, Bailey, McShane, and Clarkson?

To take the second paragraph first, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. I'm a lot of things, but when it comes to rugby league that isn't one of them.

Where are you getting the £1.925 million figure from? It's any salary over and above the £100/175k paid to the marquee player that is exempt isn't it? So if your marquee player is a home-grown player, you could pay him £1m a year if you wanted but only £100k of it would end up counting against the cap figure of £1.825 million.

What I'm saying is that if you designate one player as a "marquee" player - even if it's done in private to the RFL as part of the cap declarations - it's going to get out pretty quickly who that player is. RL is a small world. Players talk to each other about contracts. A very small pool of agents represent elite players across the league, and they all talk to each other about what deals they've got for their clients.

If clubs use the marquee player rule to give a salary increase to one player, then all his mates at a similar level within the club are going to want to know why he got it and they didn't. It's potentially divisive, and harks back to the sort of issues Leeds had in the past with signings like John Gallagher and Brett Mullins for example.

...so you don't think that advice to the RFL compliance will leak onto the net?? It will soon become obvious to all as to who has the label at each club even if not obvious to begin with.

Daft! Either have a cap or don't... This concept is doomed to failure

Does it leak now, how much players are on? and I'm not talking about bullters.

Marquee De Sade would be more interesting

Yeah but what if you're Ablett and I'm Cuthbertson who wins in an arm wrestle?

Think it's a risky introduction for us. The likes of Watkins and Hall haven't gone to Australia because they have young families that they want to raise in this country. What this provides is another possible route for them to make big money elsewhere but in THIS country (at a sport they already star in if risking RU doesn't float their boat). One might get that Leeds deal but what if Hardaker gets it and Warrington, Salford and Wigan come throwing big money at them?

We keep one but lose the other two?

Good. We shouldn't be able to keep players because of rules meaning others can't pay them their worth.

If we use it wisely, and smartly so we don't damage too many egos, it's should enable us to just have another very good player on 8% of the cap, which I'd imagine at this point is time is about the maximum.

Personally I'd rather they came up with something that rewarded the clubs that invested in youth
Let's say a player comes through the academy and providing he's made 10 1st team appearance the previous season then 5% of his salary is ignored, but it's incremental as well so the next year 2 10% is ignored up to say 50% if they stay 10 years +
That let's you have multiple players not counting fully against the cap, leaves money to spend on the gaps you can't fill from your academy and encourages teams to build good solid youth recruitment

This sounds good in principle but clubs aren't starting from the same point so some could never catch up.

Also Watkins or hall wouldn't be able to say or do anything if Hardaker for example was given the marquee salary, they have both signed 4/5 year contracts within the last 12 months so it's not like they can go anywhere if we don't want them too.

I'm all for it why shouldn't Clubs that can afford it pay their star players more to keep them or even bring in a quality signing to compliment their current squad.
All this player A will want what player B gets wont happen imo do people seriously think our star players are all paid the same?
If it was a free for all ad hoc approach yes it would be a disaster and no good for the game i also hope Dr Gobsh##es proposal of "buying" a Clubs marquee allowance isn't enforced.
Also lets not forget if a % of the wages for the marquee player don't count on the initial SC it frees up more SC space to reward those who are getting paid within it.

Trouble is, RL clubs have an appalling record when it comes to knowing what they can afford.

That's a fair point mate i'm hoping that those than do utilise it will do so with all bases covered.

Not sure it's a wise move

totally against it. all players brought through the system since 15 should only have 50% of their salary counted on the cap. this would encourage youth development and stop clubs forever going oversea's , or in the case of one club, to sort out their own youth systems instead of continually enticing other clubs players with financial incentives

Who's that, Warrington?

I really couldn't say

I have had the privelage lately in the case of a couple of individuals of knowing what Warrington have offered. To be frank, it might be wrong that Warrington are trying to poach other clubs players, but the money really isn't that significant. It might be more than the club they are currently at, but boo hoo, in some cases that extra money is well worth the gamble.

I'm cautiously in favour of the rule. I think it allows clubs to be competitive in signing or retaining a star player if they want to/can.

I'd favour some kind of academy product exemption, but not a significant one. In the end clubs still can't afford much of an increase in players wages despite a higher TV deal, and if they could I'd rather see some spent on improving club infrastructures.

One of the big benefits of the new rule in my opinion is that it opens the marquee players up to personal sponsorship deals that before would have been counted on the cap. So if Leeds Building Society wanted Leeds' marquee player as the face of a big marketing campaign they could pay him half a million if they wanted to. Whereas currently they can't.
So that's a big plus for me.

GH confirmed in a supporters branch meeting last night that he is very much in favour of the rule, but Leeds won't be using it to bring anyone in.

GH is smarter than us lot, and this rule hasn't just appeared from nowhere. In sure he's been looking at the permutations and combinations to make it work for us. Our club is now built on an ethos of playing for the badge and each other and I can't see that being flushed down the pan for this rule. Obviously some players are paid more, but they'll know that. And also know that they'll be rewarded if they work their off for the club. In on the side of greater exemptions for players who have come through academies

I know what Warrington offered Morgan Smith and it's a ridiculous amount. Even if you argue that he's such a big POTENTIAL talent, you shouldn't throw that kind of money at a 16 year old in any walk of life who is still a yet-to-be-proved properly talent.

Exactly and some you win some you lose... iirc Wigan fans cried over us "poaching" Scott Leatherbarrow a few years ago..... he was going to be the real deal.....so real in fact, he never got a game for the first team and is now at Batley Bulldogs....

few kids turn out to be Like Kallum Watkins and that's what this money will be used for, to ensure he doesn't go to Union.