Half back with good goal kicking and field kicking skills is the most important player this club needs right now. Then an extremely good leader of players.

We've also let Kirke & Bailey go in the off season meaning we have/will have lost 4 senior props. (Cuthbertson was already added to the 2015 squad before the departures of Kirke & Bailey were 'announced' at least)

Surely GH won't just fob us off with trying to claim with Mullalley coming in, Baldwinson coming back from Fev and Yates and Mulhern with another years' experience that our pack options are fine for 2016???

Agreed. Widdop fits the bill but has said he's happy at St George's?

I think the pack is the priority, but I doubt GH would use it to sign a prop.

To be honest i don't like this concept...smacks of a return to the bad old days of "star" signings like Gallagher and all that wonderful team spirit that engenders. The so called marquee player would be placed in a near impossible position of being the expected weekly world beater while at the time not causing any resentment within the ranks.

The NRL props we've linked with (Galloway/Shinllington) are decent but not "marquee" players and we could sign them under the existing cap. I think Gallen has signed for another year at Cronulla? Don't see any marquee props on the market unless Sam B turns.

The marquee signing. Like Andrew Johns and Allan Langer before him at Warrington?

Yeah, that is how you win trophies, bring in an outsider on way more money than the rest of his team mates.

Stay clear GH, stay clear.

You might want to read up on the actual rule. Because that is not what this change is at all.

Edited following sight of the official RFL statement:

The proposal is that it would effectively exempt any salary over £100k for a club-trained player or over £175k for a non club-trained player from the cap, rather than all of the salary for one particular player.

So it's not like a club could sign Cooper Cronk and all his salary would be off the cap. They would still be taking over 10% of their cap allowance on one player.

It's more likely to allow clubs to pay a bit more to an existing high earning player to prevent them clearing off to the NRL/Union rather than create space for new signings.

I'm confident that what Leeds do with it will underwhelm.

I'd like you to go for Marquee Smith.

It sort of is though isn't it.

Looking at Andy's post they could sign Cooper Cronk for £300k but only £175k would count against the cap.

Presumably, we would have to designate the marquee player?

If so, it will be obvious to all that [ione[/i guy is on a damn good crack.

Also, if they using it on a club trained player, let's say, Watkins, isn't Ryan Hall or Zak Hardaker's agent going to be banging on the door?

Leeds success has been built upon a degree of salary equality between team mates. This goes against it.

Conversely it also allows Hall nor Hardaker to seek out those wages elsewhwere and if they can't get a marquee designation elsewhere then what can they do?

Marquee Mark would be more exciting.

No it doesn't at all. It can still have the exact same ethos, as equality in salaries if they wanted it that way. What it does do more than anything is give us a 1.925 million cap rather than 1.825 million, but you have to nominate the player concerned.

Every club however, including Leeds has an inequality in the salaries they pay, you would be pretty naïve to believe they don't. Surely you are not thinking, after all your posts, as an example that Ian Kirke was earning the same as Jamie Peacock. So what is the different in equality terms with the likes of Singleton and Cuthbertson?

For my two pence, I'm not sure that I like the Marquee player rule, It has the potential to allow clubs to keep or sign 1 "star player", which it may be a good thing. But it could have a load of down sides, It could cause lower earning clubs to be anchored at the bottom of the table if they can't compete to bring in a marquee player, or worse lose the talent they have to richer clubs. it could drive the salary expectations of players up which whilst good for the players could tax poorer clubs. It could be divisive with in the squads. I fear that this is a rule change that allows richer clubs to try to buy success. Not sure it will work or that it is good for the game. Also can't see Leeds blowing the budget on one player, it may however hamper our search to strengthen the squad.