Looks like there is now special dispensation for marquee players to prevent player drain to NRL & RU.

Tomkins signs a massive contract that makes him highest paid RL player, but RFL have amended the salary cap to allow the signing:

[iWigan chairman Ian Lenagan has revealed the club have taken advantage of amendments to the league’s salary cap to help keep Tomkins in the game.

The Rugby Football League are sticking with a £1.7million ceiling but clubs are to be given permission to make allowances for long-serving, marquee and home-grown players in an effort to prevent a drain of talent to Australia and the 15-man code[/i

Will Saints make use of this special dispensation?

It's an absolute effing joke. How are they sticking with a £1,7m ceiling if they are giving 'allowances' for certain players?

It just means they are increasing the cap. Clubs cannot afford to do so.

Wonder how many marquee signings Wires can make before the start of next season?

Also begs the question, why were Saints not allowed to do this to keep Kyle Eastmond in RL?

One presumes it will only be one. But what will happen now is that Wigan have this exemption for Tomkins, they will then go and announce other signings as well. Signings they could have foregone in order to stay under the cap.

Until we know exactly how much this dispensation will be we cant really coment on it.

Because Wigan own the RFL. Sorry I couldn't help myself.

I pm you few weeks about this. I told you it was true.

It will be interesting to see what changes will be made and if the RFL went with any of the proposals Wigan put forward.

I think Wigan need a big pat on the back in the first step of keeping players in rugby league and super league.

Any 'proper' league fan will be made up Sam Tomkins is staying in superleague regardless of which club it's at.

It's a real shame it's come a bit too late to save Eastmond but better late then never. In truth I don't think Eastmond is suited to Union anyway and will be back in League in 2 or 3 years anyway.

It's not Tomkins I have a problem with. But you can guarantee that Wigan will announce further signings made possible by this change. The Sun today says they're in the process of signing an NRL centre. That's not right. If Sam takes their current squad above the cap that's one thing but then letting them add to it is wrong.

It's a good point..... and it makes you wonder how many of the lower clubs will be able to make the most of this rule... my guess is none.

It's probably just going to benefit the bigger clubs, who already have a massive advantage.

The salary cap was introduced to create parity..... this new rule would appear to contradict the whole point of the cap.

What a joke. Either raise the Salary Cap or keep it as it is. Good old RFL, muddying the waters once again.

But there's already the ten year service (up to £50K dispensation) and and an allowance for your highest paid locally produced player. This new ruling is just an extension/expansion of those. Saints could now hopefully use it to keep Foster/Lomax or Gaskell in RL.

Leave the cap alone and if a player signs a five year deal then wants a move let him rot in the reserves till the end of his contract. Once again Wigan say jump and the RFL ask how high.

It's a funny thing, I'm all for adjusting the cap to allow the retention of top homegrown talent but at the same time that should not create a loophole to allow us to flood the SL with more imports. I'd like to see fewer but better quality overseas players blended with our own talent... not the HKR route basically.

It's not like that anymore, the days of Wigan having influence over the RFL disappeared when uncle Mo slithered off. I think the RFL are trying to do something to stop a full scale talent drain. After his show against the Aussies I wouldnt be shocked to see the union leeches trying to pinch Ryan Hall.

Or keep jammer.

Everyone is talking about the fight to keep players from union IMO the nrl will be the biggest threat to super league in 2013 when they put the salary cap up!

It should be ONE player per team and that player must come through the clubs academy. Roby at Saints?

Or if we want to be really adventurous that ONE player could be a Rugby Union "convert"
That would set the cat among the pigeons.

*some* clubs cannot afford to do so.

How do clubs get more money? Sponsors and TV rights. What attracts sponsors and TV rights? Marquee players. The money available to the game and cap have a complex relationship. Set the cap too low and you create a situation where 'not having enough money' becomes self fulfilling, because you can't attract the players (and thus sponsors) in the first place.

I think the people that run the RFL are fools, have done for years, ever since Wood was in charge...BUT, even I get some hope from all this and say 'well done'. I truly thought they'd just plough on with their idiotic strategy of waiting for Wakefield to 'catch up' ( if their own town doesn't want to watch them, its not like they haven't been given enough chances, bring back relegation and give Championship clubs a reason to excel). I hope this is the start of new dawn of sanity at Red Hall. Let's see.

Have the RFL clarified if it is only for 1 player per team? I sincerely hope so.

What if a club produces 3/4 top class players? They would then only be able to have one as their "star" player and would be punished for going with youth as other teams would take them.

I still think the idea of home grown players salary not counting 100% on the cap would be a better way forward. Example - home grown players salary only counting 60% on the cap.

That way teams will invest in youth more.

Pete you know that is something I've advocated for many years, and had a few arguments against (on here) particularly from Mike McClennan (a poster whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with

) who argued that it would give too much advantage to some teams as they have better resources and therefore are able to invest more in their academy infrastructure.

When these smaller clubs produce a player of Sams quality then they can maybe have grounds for complaint.

Whilst they're filling their squads with 15 Aussies though they won't get much sympathy off me.

We need to build the game up not dumb it down.

Keeping a player like Sam Tomkins in this sport is far more important then keeping teams that aren't bringing anything to the table happy IMO.

And how do you know they are not doing? Tomkins received a nauseating level of hype during 2011 to the exclusion of every other potentially gifted player in the league. That's because he's at a big club with money and mouth. But there is, say, Dan Sargison at the Broncos who apparently is a genuine talent. Will he get noticed in the same way? Will his team get the TV attention and media hype that Wigan got with Tomkins? Will the team he plays for ever be in a position to showcase him in the way Wigan can showcase Tomkins?

Fully agree.

Having it as one homegrown player that wouldn't count punishes teams like Wigan and as a great example Saints.

With a rule in place where homegrown players don't count fully on the cap we'd really encourage clubs to produce more of their own. It would also allow Saints in the future to keep their Grahams and Eastmonds or more importantly their Roby's, Lomax's and Foster's.

Exactly my point and I know n agrees with me on that.