According to Marwan on Twitter.

Will we spend it? I can't see the club justifying the boat pushing to be honest. It'll be interesting to see which way we voted.

It'll be interesting to see what form the rule takes. Will there be a home-grown aspect to it, for example, or will it just be 'spend as much as you like on one player'? Or some combination of both?

I can't see Marwan being so pleased on twitter if that was the case, he was against any limits or any home grown element.

It's probably a matter of compromise, though. His full-fat marquee rule got soundly outvoted last time, so presumably something has been built into it to make the other clubs see it as more in their interest than the original proposal.

Or perhaps the ditching of two financially troubled clubs this year has meant that there is simply less opposition to the idea in the boardroom than there was last year.

If nothing changes for us it will just be the current player that we would save the most on. Which you would suspect would be either Walsh or Roby.

Either way (new marquee player or the money saved on an existing player) we and others will have room to expand their squads next year.

It would be great for the competition if some clubs went for a really big name.

a) we voted for it - only Wakefield, Castleford, Huddersfield and Hull voted against.

b) whether it's taking our top player off cap and bringing in a few more players for depth (most likely option for us), or go big, our wage bill will increase next year ...

c) whose passing round the pot for the Jammer transfer fee?

It would be good for super league if most teams brought in a marquee player. It would make it more exciting having big name plsyers out there each week.

You are correct. Salary over £100k exempt for one home grown player and salary above £175k exempt for one overseas player. No limits mentioned, so in theory you could pay one player more than your entire squad if you saw fit.



I don't get what stops clubs abusing this though. Extreme example to make the point. Salford sign Inglis on £10m per season contract (With a nod and wink arrangement that he'll sign a new deal on £150k a year following year, say backed up with a £0 release clause in Salford's favour after year 1). He then resigns on £150k a season deal and Salford sign Shaun Johnson from on a £5m per season deal with the same agreement. Year three they sign.... What prevents that?

I think you are right. The answer is - nothing.

As Dylan said, "money doesn't talk - it swears"

The most succesful team of the last 15 years has been Leeds, based on a great team spirit and a collection of players roughly earning the same.

If you pay 17 players roughly the same = happiness
If you pay 16 players the same and you pay one three times that = unhappiness

by the looks of it, Salford still wouldn't win.

more info www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32994481

more info www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/32994481

You would assume that most of the money will go to players already in SL, or on topping up some extravagant pension pots for a few Aussies. Even the likes of Cooper Cronk, who has been tipped for Wire, or Billy Slater will still be able to earn more in the NRL than in SL for a few years yet, so they will only come in their mid-30s. The idea of anyone in SL signing players like Inglis and Burgess is ludicrous.

I guess we will use it on Walsh next year should he get back to fitness
Wigan will presumably have Tomkins benefiting
Salford will no doubt waste it on someone already retired like Shane Webcke

Can someone explain to me like I'm a 2yr old how this works

Depends what the financial checks mentioned actually contain. At face value, Marwan could in theory offer Slater £15m per season. He'd be over like a shot. Whether anyone would be daft enough to really push the boat out remains to be seen, but the possibility is there now.

From what people say, there is quite a large difference between what the top NRL superstars are getting paid to the rest. It may be that the "almost" greg inglis and the "nearly" Cameron Smith will be able to get a better wedge over her. it will still meana drop in status as we're a minority sport, but the lieks of Luke Walsh enjoy that side of things.

Either way, if Greg Inglis is playing for Wire and Copper Cronk for Salford, it mean I'm more likely to tune into Sly TV to watch on a Thursday or Friday.

Clubs are free to pay whatever they want to a single player, but his contribution to the salary cap total is limited depending on where he is from.

Sam Tomkins gets paid £500,000 a year to play for Wigan. Of that £500,000, only £100,000 goes onto the salary cap statement for Wigan, as Sammy is "club trained".

Mal Meninga gets paid £4,500,000 a year to play for Salford. As he is a foreigner, £175,000 of Mal's salary goes onto the salary cap for Salford.

It's not a ruling for overseas players its for non club trained.

i.e James Roby would cost Saints £100k on the cap

Sam Burgess would cost Saints £175k on the cap

Alex Walmsley would cost Saints £175K on the cap

Greg Inglis would cost Saints £175k on the cap

James Graham would cost Saints £100k on the cap


You get the point...

Can we have James Graham back then please on £100,000 a year

Worth pointing out those are the values that would count on the cap. So we couldn't get Inglis for £175k. But if we did secure him for say £1.2m per season, only £175k would appear on the cap.

Yep, I will edit my original post to reflect.

Not sure what to make of this right now. Super League finally appears to be levelling out in as much as the top 6 are relatively close together, and there is certainly no given matches each week now. Will this not tip the scales back in the favour of those with a shedload of money to spend?

I get it now then. Obviously the RFL won't alow teams to pay what they can't afford

There is mention of an 'income v outgoings' assessment, but vague as to what that means. Koukash is celebrating the ruling and throwing offers around as we speak, but you would expect Salford to have the least income in SL so would be hard to see how they will pass the assessment, unless they count handouts from sugar daddies as 'income'.

I don't like the rule, I think it encourages clubs to spend money they don't have in place of developing their own. I would have much preferred exemptions to be based on club developed players, so you can actually keep those you produce.

What you can see coming now is the 'I want more' approach from Marwan and Wigan. They've got their free pass to spend more, which they have craved since the new owners came in. Now take Wigan as an example, they would be daft to not use the marquee player rule on Sam. It would keep a huge chunk off the cap and allow them to spend it on other players. If they don't use it on him, they would lose £75,000 of cap room. But once the next young player is discussing terms with the NRL or Union, they will be out with the placards again demanding another marquee allowance in order to score a moral victory for RL and keep their player.

It would make sense to get jammer back

Whilst agreeing in principle with the ruling I would also have liked some of the tv money be ring fenced to ensure the return of U23 / reserve grade rugby. As I stated in the "Saints sign 2 beasts" topics Catalan should be in that structure.