This sounds good in principle but clubs aren't starting from the same point so some could never catch up.

Also Watkins or hall wouldn't be able to say or do anything if Hardaker for example was given the marquee salary, they have both signed 4/5 year contracts within the last 12 months so it's not like they can go anywhere if we don't want them too.

I'm all for it why shouldn't Clubs that can afford it pay their star players more to keep them or even bring in a quality signing to compliment their current squad.
All this player A will want what player B gets wont happen imo do people seriously think our star players are all paid the same?
If it was a free for all ad hoc approach yes it would be a disaster and no good for the game i also hope Dr Gobsh##es proposal of "buying" a Clubs marquee allowance isn't enforced.
Also lets not forget if a % of the wages for the marquee player don't count on the initial SC it frees up more SC space to reward those who are getting paid within it.

Trouble is, RL clubs have an appalling record when it comes to knowing what they can afford.

That's a fair point mate i'm hoping that those than do utilise it will do so with all bases covered.

Not sure it's a wise move

totally against it. all players brought through the system since 15 should only have 50% of their salary counted on the cap. this would encourage youth development and stop clubs forever going oversea's , or in the case of one club, to sort out their own youth systems instead of continually enticing other clubs players with financial incentives

Who's that, Warrington?

I really couldn't say

I'm cautiously in favour of the rule. I think it allows clubs to be competitive in signing or retaining a star player if they want to/can.

I'd favour some kind of academy product exemption, but not a significant one. In the end clubs still can't afford much of an increase in players wages despite a higher TV deal, and if they could I'd rather see some spent on improving club infrastructures.

One of the big benefits of the new rule in my opinion is that it opens the marquee players up to personal sponsorship deals that before would have been counted on the cap. So if Leeds Building Society wanted Leeds' marquee player as the face of a big marketing campaign they could pay him half a million if they wanted to. Whereas currently they can't.
So that's a big plus for me.

GH confirmed in a supporters branch meeting last night that he is very much in favour of the rule, but Leeds won't be using it to bring anyone in.

GH is smarter than us lot, and this rule hasn't just appeared from nowhere. In sure he's been looking at the permutations and combinations to make it work for us. Our club is now built on an ethos of playing for the badge and each other and I can't see that being flushed down the pan for this rule. Obviously some players are paid more, but they'll know that. And also know that they'll be rewarded if they work their off for the club. In on the side of greater exemptions for players who have come through academies

I know what Warrington offered Morgan Smith and it's a ridiculous amount. Even if you argue that he's such a big POTENTIAL talent, you shouldn't throw that kind of money at a 16 year old in any walk of life who is still a yet-to-be-proved properly talent.

Exactly and some you win some you lose... iirc Wigan fans cried over us "poaching" Scott Leatherbarrow a few years ago..... he was going to be the real deal.....so real in fact, he never got a game for the first team and is now at Batley Bulldogs....

few kids turn out to be Like Kallum Watkins and that's what this money will be used for, to ensure he doesn't go to Union.