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.

The marquee player rule is one for the rich owners like Moran, Lenegan and Koukash, who don't like and aren't used competing on a level playing field.

It's one for those chairmen who want to buy rather than build success.

Frankly, it's got nothing going for it other than making a small handful of players much richer and a handful of rich men more self-important than they already are.

That sums it up for me. Having a level playing field is great for the competition in this country in a way but it does mean that our best talent just likely to be drawn to the nrl or union.

The best the rfl can do is support the clubs who can't afford the salary cap, to try and stay more fansand generate more money in the game

I think it does create a possibility of dressing room dissension when one guy is picked for the marquee player role, especially if you have a few players who would be worthy of the spot.

I don't think it means one page has to be paid a vast amount more just that you can nominate a page to not count. You could have your four top players all earning the Dame because one of them is counted as the marquee player. That's how I would implement it anyway

level playing field means everyone spending at Wakefields level is that really what the salary cap should do?

I disagree. Level playing field is everyone having the opportunity to spend the same. The likes of Wakefield who do not seem to be able to make the best of their lot should not hold back the rest in the country. Id be interested to see which clubs doesn't what, and what they could spend. At they point at which more than 8 teams can afford to spend full cap it should be increased.

Should be used not only to keep the playing field level but to give clubs something to aim to, including the bigger clubs