Yet we have a salary cap and only 4 teams have won our competition. So what would happen is it would be the same just more exciting and higher quality

the best Aussies might not. But the best kiwis or pack islanders don't have the rep issue.

There are more players to go after than the 40 SoO players.

Considering the news from Hull KR this week I can't see how anyone could argue against any player getting more money.

There was. Just not as much. The squeeky wheel it seems, got the oil.

Nothing will change at all as the same teams will be at the top whilst the others are struggling. This will make Super League weaker as not all teams could afford a marquee signing.

and les Catalans have the 2nd biggest turnover in SL. They aren't a little guy getting a leg up from the SC

Like I said, stamp your feet n others will give in eventually

Ok what about Cas being one win from finishing top?

Tough sh!7

Players know quality when they see it. When you have a world class player on the pitch that stands above everyone else then that will be recognised.

People need to think outside their immediate team , we need to stop players such as Burgess , Eastmond ,Tomkins leaving the competition and if this helps all well and good. I'm a Salford fan and despite spending a bomb we're 2nd bottom so spending doesn't always mean results.
There will always be winners and losers , it's all relative though so when people mean the lower clubs in terms of ££ it still means they can recruit ,no one has to spend the max salary cap as it is now so no one has to spend the max marquee budget either

Less than a year after their owner gave them an 800k gift? We are 15 years in to the SC. Wigan were spending 3.2m in 2001. In real terms we are spending about 35% of what we were on wages prior to the SC coming in and clubs are still going bust and the big clubs still win everything.

As Dr Koukash has found out. Far from evening the competition the SC entrenched the advantage of the big clubs.

Not across the 12 teams in SL the ££££££ won't be enough to talk. But the money that Koukash especially will be willing to throw about definitely will talk!! You're a fool if you think otherwise. Koukash is a billionaire with an addiction to Rugby League...


If a player in a team with a marquee signing doesn't like the fact another bloke is on 3x as much as himself then he can go see if the grass is greener and become a marquee signing himself. If Leeds for example signed Cronk and Hardaker didnt like the fact then where is Hardaker going to go? As brilliant as Hardaker is he is no where near the huge NRL names. Go to a club like KR, FC, Cas, be their big marquee signing and win naff all for the rest of your career...

I was under the impression there was a vendetta against Salford, so why would the RFL go along with this – outrageous.

I personally don’t see how it will help with the team dynamics, I’m sure there will be resentment from the rest of the team towards one player on considerably more cash.

A bit like when Chase was at Cas, the rest of the team seemed to let him shoulder the burden as he was on considerably more money.

It will also be interesting at Leeds with their reportedly stringent wage structures.

So the big clubs will still win everything with the added plus of a marquee player

Think why these clubs win everything, they have invested big style in youth, saints wigan and leeds can blend youth players into their squads as they have been bringing players through for years, other clubs have found that was the way, it takes time, we at fc are doing it that way now, even our much criticised neighbours are. Warrington are rumoured to bring in Cronk at the expense of a junior who is playing now just for quick success

A sad day for Super League. I know my club won't be going down the marquee player route. We should have waited until all SL clubs are paying up to the max SC limit first and then had a look at it.

Aye of course he is. And when Salford sign Cooper Cronk but still finish 8th/9th because one player only makes a small difference, what will he do then?

In the 10 years before SL, there were only 2 teams crowned champions.

Also the Salary Cap has not run for the full 20 years of SL.

So looking at who has been crowned champions is a bit misleading in terms of the competitiveness of the league.

The details on this agreement will be key. Without the details it's impossible to say whether it will benefit the game or not.

The concern about overspending is a valid concern. Football can afford to lose teams like Leeds from it's top flight due to the wealth of teams below who can step up and take that spot.

Look at the commotion on the boards last year when Bradford were relegated. We has all the too big to fail arguements then. Now we could be looking at more cases of too big to fail.

Then there is also the consideration that these uncapped players (if the rule is as expected will be 1 player per team) that's not going to have a huge impact on results, especially when that top player could be injured for a percentage of the season.

Losing players like Eastmond and Graham has had little impact on Saints crowds. In fact they went up as facilities were a far bigger factor in drawing in more support than any number of big name players.

I think there are arguements both ways. The free marketer in me says let them spend what they want and when they crash, drop them like a stone.

The RL fan fears that we can't afford to have that attitude with our sport.

but we have also had marquee players. Lyon, Barrett,Lauitiiti.

The youth development arguement falls down on the fact we are still bringing in overseas players they are just of a poorer quality. We shouldn't be bringing in any overseas player who isn't a 'marquee' player. It is far far better for us to have fewer but better overseas players. It makes no sense for a league which already contains rankin kelly Blair miller burns smith etc to complain about bringing Cronk in.

Perhaps if young British players were playing instead of Sa, Talanoa, Michaels, Rankin Feka, we would see a real quality marquee signing at Hull?

So let me get this right. If as was rumoured it is a home grown player paid over 100k, only the first 100k counts on the salary cap (that's about 6%). An overseas player paid over 150k, the first 150k counts against the cap (about 9%). For squads of 25 those %s are still big chunks of the SC.

How on earth is this going to change anything other than an opportunity for the sugar daddies to pour their money down the drain.

in the 15 years prior to the SC we saw 5 different champions. In the 15 years since we have seen 4.

And you totally missed what I posted about youth players and hull clubs starting to bring youth players through. Throwing them all in together is suicide and not good for confidence getting beat every week. The only guilty part on my teams part is paying over the odds in the past on over rated overseas

Maybe that was more to do with no relegation so some clubs spent less (didn't care) as they were cosy in SL.

I don't like the idea.

Only 2/3 clubs will use it and other clubs could gamble on this for a short term fix and this will then affect how much they are putting into their academies.

Also, who will this attract? The elite players won't come so it seems utterly pointless to me.

Is this definitely the rule being brought in?

I'd be surprised if it doesn't turn into a Mexican standoff

It's not just about attendances though is it? It's about profile.

SL at the moment lacks stars. Joe public would probably struggle to name any current player, Tomkins was probably the only one, but he left.

We need to retain our top talent and sign quality from elsewhere. This isn't just attendances, but profile - which leads to bigger sponsorship, tv audiences, corporate sales, alsorts. We're obsessed with stadium attendances.

Stars gain the interest of the casual observer.

No details given yet, but you would hope they actually voted on a firm set of rules/conditions. They were just the last things that I read.