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.