Is the 50k rule for long serving players still in play? If so you can use the full 50k on just one player. Meaning you could have Watkins on about 200k (marquee), Hall on 200k (50k off the cap) and hardaker on 200k and it only count as 450k on the cap.

This leaves more cash for the other lads. If clubs are smart and GH is, basically we could just add an extra pay grade at the top of the scale.

...but nobody presently has the label "marquee player" ...the connotations just sound divisive to me.

If we bring in Cronk maybe Hall; Watkins and Hardaker might end up being marquee players at other clubs if the title floats their boat

But that won't be where it causes issues.

Let's say, for example, that Ryan Hall and Kallum Watkins are both on £100k a year as established internationals.

Word gets out that the RFU or an NRL club are sniffing after Watkins, so Leeds offer him £150k a year to stay in the knowledge that only £100k of that is going to count against the cap. If you're Ryan Hall's agent, aren't you immediately banging on Hetherington's door wanting to know why your client - a player of similar standing in the game - isn't also getting £150k?

It's going to become much harder to pin players down on long-term contracts, because their earning potential will fluctuate depending on which other clubs in SL have marquee player slots available that they might be able to exploit to get a few extra quid in their pockets.

I am sure that when a player is signed or a new contract issued, there is not a provision that you have to state this is our Marquee player. All the clubs have to do is operate their cap the way they do now, and advise the RFL compliance who their Marquee player is so that the cap calculations will be accurate.

All we are really seeing here is a way of increasing the cap by an amount that isn't even 10%, despite how many years it has been in operation.

yeah but what if you are Carl Ablett and you are seeing both hall and Watkins getting 100k already and you only get 60k?

Personally I think the idea that our success is based on rules allowing us to pay players less than their worth pretty distasteful

That's a fantasy assumption to make. It really is going to be no different to before. Leeds have had that exact same scenario, as have other clubs. You still have 1.925 million to play with, not just the £100k you speak of.

What do you think Sinfield in his prime, or more appropriately Peacock, Ali, Webb and Buderus were earning? surely you don't think the same as Kirke, Bailey, McShane, and Clarkson?

To take the second paragraph first, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. I'm a lot of things, but when it comes to rugby league that isn't one of them.

Where are you getting the £1.925 million figure from? It's any salary over and above the £100/175k paid to the marquee player that is exempt isn't it? So if your marquee player is a home-grown player, you could pay him £1m a year if you wanted but only £100k of it would end up counting against the cap figure of £1.825 million.

What I'm saying is that if you designate one player as a "marquee" player - even if it's done in private to the RFL as part of the cap declarations - it's going to get out pretty quickly who that player is. RL is a small world. Players talk to each other about contracts. A very small pool of agents represent elite players across the league, and they all talk to each other about what deals they've got for their clients.

If clubs use the marquee player rule to give a salary increase to one player, then all his mates at a similar level within the club are going to want to know why he got it and they didn't. It's potentially divisive, and harks back to the sort of issues Leeds had in the past with signings like John Gallagher and Brett Mullins for example.

...so you don't think that advice to the RFL compliance will leak onto the net?? It will soon become obvious to all as to who has the label at each club even if not obvious to begin with.

Daft! Either have a cap or don't... This concept is doomed to failure

Does it leak now, how much players are on? and I'm not talking about bullters.

Marquee De Sade would be more interesting

Yeah but what if you're Ablett and I'm Cuthbertson who wins in an arm wrestle?

Think it's a risky introduction for us. The likes of Watkins and Hall haven't gone to Australia because they have young families that they want to raise in this country. What this provides is another possible route for them to make big money elsewhere but in THIS country (at a sport they already star in if risking RU doesn't float their boat). One might get that Leeds deal but what if Hardaker gets it and Warrington, Salford and Wigan come throwing big money at them?

We keep one but lose the other two?

Good. We shouldn't be able to keep players because of rules meaning others can't pay them their worth.

If we use it wisely, and smartly so we don't damage too many egos, it's should enable us to just have another very good player on 8% of the cap, which I'd imagine at this point is time is about the maximum.

Personally I'd rather they came up with something that rewarded the clubs that invested in youth
Let's say a player comes through the academy and providing he's made 10 1st team appearance the previous season then 5% of his salary is ignored, but it's incremental as well so the next year 2 10% is ignored up to say 50% if they stay 10 years +
That let's you have multiple players not counting fully against the cap, leaves money to spend on the gaps you can't fill from your academy and encourages teams to build good solid youth recruitment