Yet again the divide grows between the cash rich clubs and those struggling ones likeTrinity! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7291354

Yet again the divide grows between the cash rich clubs and those struggling ones likeTrinity! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7291354

And short of DrK bringing in the Queensland state of origin side in, it still won't get him any supporters!!

Who is throwing £££££ at Hull KR and Widnes these days???

Even Huddersfield are playing it safe.

I love a posters suggestion that if a club can't afford a marque allowance they can sell it to another club. I'd just waste it and see how many clubs come pestering for it.

For me we won't see any difference in the quality of NrL players coming over here than we have now. It'll also devide the sport even further. It makes me laugh how the bigger clubs want a competitive sport yet they want less teams in the top competition.

I think it's a good idea to be fair. Tough on clubs like us but good for the game as a whole.

Seems strange that we approve an idea that was dismissed a few months back, round about the same time as Sepp Blatter resigns, is he coming in as financial director to the RFL?

Who judges whether a player is 'marquee' player?
One for WT may not fit that category at Wigan.
I thought the Salford owner has recently said that they weren't going to 'waste' money on big name players and he was the champion of this issue.

the price does, so if two or more clubs want to barter for one player his value goes up

The idea is brought in for 2 main reasons.
Firstly to allow clubs to hang on to special players and secondly to allow the game to bring in "star" players.
Unfortunately, with the spending power of the bigger Union clubs and the massive disparity in the size of the salary cap in Australia, the likely result
is that we will overpay good players but, still not be able to attract superstars.
Mind you, at least Wigan will be able to cover Tomkins wages under the cap !

Mind you, IF we could attract some top names, it would give the game a boost, in terms of some decent publicity and create some additional interest
amongst the paying public.

We are now more likely than ever to see big name Aussies at the end of their respective careers, looking for a tasty contract to finish their careers in the UK.

BINGO. Sums it up perfectly.

Tomkins was brought in prior to this rule, so i'm presuming they can still bring another in.

Personally i would scrap the salary cap completely for all clubs that have a reasonable turnover. The cap should only apply to clubs who don't have the income to cover any greater spends.
Why should the likes of Wigan, Leeds etc not be able to spend what they want? Since it was introduced, it hasn't really levelled up the competition, and at the same time it hasn't stopped clubs over spending, as us and Bradford can testify!

Tomkins may have been brought in prior to the rule but no reason why they can't make him the marquee player. His contract will be a very good one I'm sure and if they can cut that back to just £100k officially on the salary cap books then that will aid Wigan immensely to fit other players in that cap.

Whilst it's good that the game is trying to compete with the NRL, lets just swallow it and accept it that we never will. The money paid to players over there where the crowd numbers are far far far superior to what we have is always going to be a telling factor. But rugby (both codes) is Australia's main sporting event and we will never be able to compete with the salary's there in the same way Australia's football league teams won't be able to compete with the salary's that our Premier League teams pay either for exactly the same reason.

If we are to make our game better and try and close the gap, lets introduce this marquee ruling but for any team that uses it has to pay £100,000 into grass roots rugby in their specific rural area's to improve the game and facilities for the kids at a young age who eventually may well appear in a Super League shirt for one of the top teams.

I've long talked about something along these lines - but it will never happen; the grassroots game is largely ignored by the RFL and SL clubs aren't interested until you have a team who are approaching the age that they can be signed on - then suddenly you spot mysterious men in long, SL club-badged coats, watching your matches and approaching parents in the car park after a game.

The grassroots game is in a dire situation, and without the largesse of parents and local businesses who sponsor kits, it would die a slow death. For mine, SL clubs should be compelled to be actively engaged with grassroots clubs in their catchment area, so that young players can be developed with at least some professional oversight, and the clubs themselves have some support to keep doing what they do without scratching round for resources all the time.

Quote ="asmadasa"Yet again the divide grows between the cash rich clubs and those struggling ones likeTrinity! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7291354'" The way around that to some degree is to allow Koucash's suggestion of being able to purchase ONE more marquee spot from a club that can't afford it. Say £250k to Wakefield which helps them to buy 3 very good players, making them more competitive, as opposed to 1 marquee player. It also helps to move wealth around the game from those who have it to those who don't. Under the marquee rule there are a potential 12 spots available, that's 12 big news marketable stories that help sell the game and attract new sponsors, fans etc.. We would be stupid to restrict ourselves to just signing 8 because 4 clubs can't afford it.

Quote ="asmadasa"Yet again the divide grows between the cash rich clubs and those struggling ones likeTrinity! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7291354'" The way around that to some degree is to allow Koucash's suggestion of being able to purchase ONE more marquee spot from a club that can't afford it. Say £250k to Wakefield which helps them to buy 3 very good players, making them more competitive, as opposed to 1 marquee player. It also helps to move wealth around the game from those who have it to those who don't. Under the marquee rule there are a potential 12 spots available, that's 12 big news marketable stories that help sell the game and attract new sponsors, fans etc.. We would be stupid to restrict ourselves to just signing 8 because 4 clubs can't afford it.

You’re absolutely right bren. Until recently we never bothered much with the grassroots clubs in Bradford. Since we got John Bastian in that’s begun to change but there’s a very long way to go. I can’t believe that the club was so blasé about it in the past. I suspect that’s the case at many other clubs too. It’s taken the decline and fall of the team, two admin periods and relegation for us to properly reconnect with local clubs.

Call me an old cynic but, without the new Marquee Player ruling, Wigan would not have been able to afford Tomkins under the old salary cap rule.
They have effectively gambled on the new rule being passed (although one suspects than they must have been certain of it coming in in time for his arrival)
and whilst it will be great to see Tomkins plying his trade in SL, perhaps it shows just how much influence the top few clubs have within the sport.

The Marquee player rule is incidental to clubs like Wakefield as we don't spend the full cap, let alone have 300/400k spare for a "star".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Marquee Player rule is a gimmick/ publicity stunt for the sport.

The sensible option would be to increase the cap and leave clubs to manage their squads accordingly.

Again, although it doesn't affect Wakefield at present, the cap should have at least increased in line with inflation rather than being frozen but, the main part to all this is that we will still end up with Aussie players chasing a big pay day as none of the current internationals or SOO players will come over here and miss out on playing representative rugby.

It's just another chance for the people at Red Hal to self congratulate each other on "a job well done", when the reality is somewhat different.

It could also be the case that 12 very good players could be looking for a club and regular games. Thy will not come cheap but I can see some noses being pushed out. Warrington have already indicated that they have a hit list and they will not be on their own. Happy days.

Salary cap,no salary cap.Marquee players or not,there will always be ways to get round paying players.Money talks and always will.

Imagine the scene in the dressing room at Warrington or Leeds, when the players look over at an ageing Cooper Cronk or Billy Slater, and know full well that he's getting paid 3 times as much as them, because he's been deemed to be 'marquee...'

Meanwhile, I believe that clubs will have to demonstrate affordability before they can use this rule, which will probably exempt Salford if affordability is based on T/O and P&L; I expect Dr K's Twitter feed will make interesting reading if Salford are disallowed from using the rule he's spent months stamping his feet to introduce. Conversely, if it's not based on tangible, real-life affordability measures, then it's just a sugar daddy rule, which is not good for the game - or the clubs involved.

Personally I couldn't disagree more, Warrington and Leeds players can already look across the dressing room at a supposedly better player who's earning much more than they are, it's a fact of being a professional player.

As I've said earlier, some clubs can afford it, sugar daddy or not, and some clubs can't but that also is the way of life. I'd allow the wealthy clubs to purchase one extra marquee spot from a club who can't afford to use it.

If Koucash rang Carter and said I'll buy your marquee place and pay you £250k (the figure Dr K suggested) a year for the next 3 years, I'm sure Mick Carter would snap his hand off.

That would allow a club like Wakefield to buy 3 or 4 very good 1st choice players and make them competitive even without a marquee signing.

The publicity surrounding 12 high profile signings can only be great for the game and fans, sponsors etc would be encouraged to be involved.

Win Win Win IMO

Thats what it is. I believe that if the clubs can't prove they can cover it through the books then a benefactor can lodge a bond with the RFL to cover the cost of the signing.

Whilst that would be a good scenario it isn't one that is happening as they are not allowed to be sold on. So the divide between the haves and have nots will just get bigger.

Its only last week that the good doctor said "I've finished with big time Charlies and I'll spend my money on the academy structure at the club". Seems to change his mind depending on what day it is.

Yet!

Precisely.

I can't see how this is good for the game, or how it does anything to achieve the lofty stated aims; it still won't tempt GI or any other rep player in his pomp from the NRL, it still won't stop top players leaving SL and it still won't force clubs to invest in their youth development. More likely, it will inflate the worth of players like James Roby, who will be designated marquee to give Saints more SC wiggle room; or it will over-value NRL has-beens who are here to bump up their pension pot before hanging up their boots.

There's a multitude of ways the RFL could have been creative with finances for the betterment of the game - this one is just reactionary piffle that will benefit the already wealthy few.