I suppose we can expect a raft of rumours about players moving to RU or the NRL started by their agents in a bid to secure them the "marquee" status and a nice pay rise.....

I don't see a problem with this.

I'd like to see the reserves come back though - so many young players are being lost because they're not given time to develop their games in their early 20s.

I'm cautiously in favour of the rule.
It allows those clubs who can to compete with the NRL and Union for at least some of the top players.

One of the biggest benefits in my opinion is that it opens up more sponsorship opportunities for the marquee player at each club as they're currently restricted by the salary cap.

Yeah, because all the best English players have been improving their game in the NRL!

Joe public would be even harder pressed to name an overseas player I think. If they aren't interested in the domestic game they'll be even less interested in Aussie or NZ games IMO

There are about 400 top flight standard RL players in the NRL. 14% of these play at international/inter-state level for, NZ, NSW/QLND (AKA Australia) and they should be considered the ELITE. I very much doubt that any CURRENT Maroon or roach will be tempted away, the same with a current Kiwi, so that leaves the level BELOW elite who might be tempted to come to the UK. But then, if you're nearly a pick for Origin or on the Kiwis training squad, do you give up on rep football? I don't think so, leaving us with the third tier.

400 NRL players and we've discounted 102 of them already.

I believe that this Marquee allowance will be used to bring the Billy Slaters/SBW's of the game over at the end of their careers in the hope that if you're paying them 400k a year, they sell the 20,000 tickets to cover their wages.

People act like we didn't have marquee players before, like we didn't get good value out of plenty of big names before. You think Garry Hetherington isn't confident in the value of bringing in Ali Lauitiiti? or Saints think it might not have been worth paying loads for Jamie Lyon?

When the exchange rate was more favourable, and when we had a Salary Cap that was about a third bigger in real terms than it is now, we brought in big players and it was virtually unheard of for us to lose a player to the NRL.

Because of inflation, since the cap came in in 2001 we have lost ground on the amounts we pay. Under this rule A club could pay 1 player about £1.25m a year and not be spending any more in real terms yet apparently it will both kill the game through overspending and not bring in anyone of note.

Aren't we taking a knife to a gun fight here? This exemption was announced on a day when Daly Cherry Evans signed a contract extension reportedly worth around $1.5m a season.

I'm not against this rule, but I do think that there is a danger of it becoming a blunt instrument. If we work on the basis that the best way to attract, develop and retain talent is to pay it more (and that's debatable), then lets work at bringing more revenue in the game, across all of our full-time clubs, to facilitate that, rather than creating "loopholes" in the salary cap that only a handful of clubs can exploit.

Having the RFL tinkering with the salary cap rules doesn't address the core problem which is that the game lacks cash. Placing greater demands on the owners and commercial managers at our clubs to generate more revenue from ticketing, commercial partnerships, merchandising and hospitality is the way that we can ultimately reward our players in a way that is sustainable.

Does Wigan signing Tompkins improve Hull KR's ability to sell sponsorship, or will Leeds signing Gareth Widdop stop Wakefield from hemorrhaging money?

No but it may help gain more sponsors and media intrest and in turn attract more viewers. Which will put us in a better position when negotiating future viewership rights for our competitions.

We need to strive to be the best, and pandering to the lowest few clubs is not the way to get better and expand.

Man city or Chelsea don't have to ask Burnley and Palace whether or not they can buy Fabregas or not.

I do agree we need some limits, football is not the model we want. But the SC needed to grow years ago we need to attract and maintain the best talent.

1.5m aud is abut 750kgbp. We have just signed a tv deal worth (apparently) 600k more per club. I really don't think, financially, we are as far away as people think.

Spot on. The reserves need tk come back as well.

But For those saying the marquee player is the death of junior development, it allows clubs to pay ONE player as much as they want. How is paying one player stopping an entire junior system working.

The marquee player will work for teams like Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Saints as they have junior set up in place that allows ten to have a good squad. They can then go and buy that superstar to bring in additional fans, sponsors, media interest etc

It’s a shame that self interest reigns and as a result we can have a consensus that brings in the “marquee player” rule but also one that puts players on the scrapheap at 19 and devalues lower league competition by using the discredited dual reg system.

No club in Britain (even Leigh or Hull KR) would increase their attendaces by 20000 just by signing one player. Even if it was Greg Inglis or Jarred Hayne.

I'd argue it wouldn't change crowds much. I think you would see a bumper day 1 crowd, full of floating voters who had otherwise given up on regular support. Signing superstars will not however bring in masses of new fans as those fans don't know anything about Greg Inglis, Jarryd Hayne or Shaun Johnson.

Can't wait to see which club shoots first on this and what kind of player is it that receives it. Will clubs be made to disclose who the marquee player is publically?

Then why are we paying players at all?

Or did we just coincidently choose exactly the right amount 15 years ago and the optimum amount for us to pay has fallen at exactly the rate of inflation for 15 years?