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