totally disagree with it. cap should stay as it is.

Disagree Tad the marquee allowance is needed if the SC isn't going to get a major increase/restructure imo.
One aspect i don't want brought in though is other Clubs "buying" a smaller clubs marquee allowance it should 1 allowance per Club if a Club doesn't take that up then it should just stay there should they get a new investor etc.
Totally agree G1 you don't replace JP the same goes for Sinny you get a different player to make their own impact and evolve your team just like we did when Senior left or Ali ,Webb etc.

Peacock is not irreplaceable, at least the 2015 version isn't.

Good post mate. Well said!

Could some one explain how the Marquee allowance would work? Is it an additional sum above and beyond the current cap designed to be spent on one superstar player, Can money from the "regular" salary cap also be used for the same player? There are pros and cons for the cap system and I can't decide whether the current cap helps or hinders our game overall. I do however find it depressing that so many SL Star performers seem to get skimmed off into the NRL or RU. However I wonder how many clubs could survive / remain competitive if the SL cap was raised to anywhere near NRL or RU levels.

I think its an additional sum above the cap. A one off allowance to sign a star player.

I like the idea of marque signing, but it's open for abuse. If not policed properly, a club could pay a player £500k for 1-2 seasons then 100k for the next 2 and sign another marque player. Or flip that round with a low first 2-3 years then a massive final year contract. Similar to what wigan did with fielden.

I'd prefer the homegrown (50% after 3 years) and long serving players (50% after 5 years at one club)to be reduced salary cap, this would then be fair and open and would still allow clubs to make 2-3 high end signings.

A RL mag in OZ are saying Leeds have made a bid for Widdop

rlHererl

That's the one

There should certainly be reward for bringing through your own players, with further 'discounts' if they become internationals.

Rugby League Week's "The Mole" reckons Leeds have zero chance of landing Widdop.

Who decides whether a player is "marquee" and does it have to be a signing or could it be a new contract for a current player.

For example, could Leeds us the "marquee" loophole to stop someone like Watkins, for example, being poached by the NRL or union?

Frankly, I am against it but I know I am in the minority who doesn't crave big name signings each season.

You contradict yourself in your own post.

Your quite correct on marquee, and I think the proposal is to nominate a player outside of the cap, based on the salary paid. So new or current.

Surely anyone would crave the Marquee each year, if meant keeping of losing a player?

Why? Where do I say That I would like Leeds to use this to keep a player? I asked a question.

I'd certainly rather not lose a player like Watkins but nor do I think making him a "marquee" player would be good for the team. In fact, it would go against everything the team has been built upon over the last decade. So, no, I wouldn't crave it even if it meant losing a talented young player.

We've lost players before to Union and NRL and we will lose them again. But the players that want to be here (like Watkins and Hall) are here for the right reasons and help build what we've built.