The marque signing rule was just another gimmick and is a back door way of increasing the cap, which should have at least increased in line with inflation.
If this allows a few clubs to be a little stronger, then, good on them.
Certain clubs have found ways round the cap anyway so, perhaps this point is unnecessary.

Fat cats just want to get fatter, it's just the way it is and the lack of take up of the marquee signings shows that, despite the hot air and bluster in some quarters, we are probably at the right level of spend for the revenue that the game can generate.

Having said that, we should always be looking forward.

In can certainly recall watching talents such as Steve Renouf, Trent Barratt, Tonie Carroll, Ali Lautiiti, Lesley Vainikolo, Darren Albert and (if we include his brief cameo) Andrew Johns. All of these were fantastic box-office talents and representative players at the time they joined the league and continued to be for some years after. We simply don't attract that quality of talent any more.

And on top of that, we're losing a strong proportion of what we have - all because some clubs simply can't afford an inflation-linked increase in the salary cap.

People can choose to see this as big clubs wanting to have a bigger slice of the pie, or you can see it as people trying to make the pie bigger.

I think you can blame the economy as much as anything else for this. All of those names you mentioned came over here years ago when the pound was far stronger, the aus dollar was weaker, and britain wasn't trying its best to self destruct.

There's no point in even trying to compare the uk game to the NRL anymore because they are so far ahead in every aspect. They grew the sport on a domestic level and the money followed.

We will get the odd superstar over here in fits and starts, trying to resurrect their careers after falls from grace in the NRL (Barba). But other than that we're just going to have to create our own. And with the state of the reserve comp / dual reg fiasco, that won't be happening at the rate it needs to be.

Trent Barrett and Steve Renouf were the wrong side of 30 before Playing a game in Sl as good as they were it’s not the same as attracting key nrl players in the prime. Vainikolo played 68 times in 5 seasons of NRL before signing. Andrew Johns is the finest player I’ve seen with my own eyes however he played what 4 games ??? Hardly marquee. As good as Darren Albert was in no way can you call him a marquee player. Out of all those you mention only Lauitiiti and Carroll (for 2 seasons)would I class as marquee at the time of signing in SL. You can all you want about standards falling but but going on as if there would be a que of nrl top drawer players coming to play for Wigan or Hull if the sc wasn’t there is hilarious.

This is a very good point. If the clubs aren't doing enough to market themselves - and I'd agree they're not - then they're equally at fault when it comes to player development.

I have just listened to the BBC Five Live rugby league podcast, which included an interview with Ian Lenagan: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05xyb2w It is clear that Lenagan's prediction of an international expansion of Super League was not assuming change this year or even next year, but rather in five years. That would coincide with the next Sky TV contract. So we could have the new French and north American clubs -- Toulouse, Toronto, and New York -- entering Super League over the next five years. He also wants to see London promoted. Personally I would like to see Montreal and Boston also in the mix, to create a north American conference, and Avignon and Paris encouraged to join the system as well to create a French conference. Then we would truly have an international club game. But for all of that expansion to happen we must return to the system of licensing and franchises, rather than retaining promotion and relegation.

I have just listened to the BBC Five Live rugby league podcast, which included an interview with Ian Lenagan: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05xyb2w It is clear that Lenagan's prediction of an international expansion of Super League was not assuming change this year or even next year, but rather in five years. That would coincide with the next Sky TV contract. So we could have the new French and north American clubs -- Toulouse, Toronto, and New York -- entering Super League over the next five years. He also wants to see London promoted. Personally I would like to see Montreal and Boston also in the mix, to create a north American conference, and Avignon and Paris encouraged to join the system as well to create a French conference. Then we would truly have an international club game. But for all of that expansion to happen we must return to the system of licensing and franchises, rather than retaining promotion and relegation.

So, we have Catalans, Toulouse, Toronto, New York, Montreal, Boston, Avignon and Paris. That's 8 non-UK teams. Just how big is this new SL going to be, or are we planning a 4 team conference in the UK as well?

It's been said in response to one of my earlier posts that RU have a trans-continental competition (Super Rugby), so what's wrong with RL doing the same? Well, apart from a number of reported welfare and other issues with the travel involved, it's an expensive job transporting teams between continents every week. The game is struggling to make ends meet without the added expense of travel to this extent as well.

In concept, the idea of a transatlantic RL competition with European and North American/Canadian conferences seems great, and I do get why some folk on here like the idea. The problem is straightforward. Reality. RL is a minority sport in the UK and France, and what we have in terms of TV income is probably already maxed out. Any deals that are arranged on the other side of the pond would likely benefit the teams there rather than in Europe.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What does the end game look like, and what is the 5, 10, 15 year plan to get there? Clubs popping up across the Northern Hemisphere in a somewhat random fashion doesn't constitute a plan.

...good job you're not tuned into SKY TV watching Catalans Hurtling towards the Championship....

Out of interest only why have catalans never taken more games to Barcelona? after getting 18k vs warrington all those years ago ?

The reason we have "maxed out" our income from TV / commercial is because the product we're offering is not one that broadcasters and sponsors are interested in. It comes down to the point I have said from the start - it's all about audience, and we're offering one that they aren't interested in.

When a product is wrong, you need to change it to survive. I don't know if an "Atlantic Super League" is the answer to that particular conundrum, but I know that there's enough evidence to show that trying to persevere with what we have is certainly not the answer. We need to find new audiences, we need to find audiences that sponsors and broadcasters are actually in and we need to change the product to one that paying supporters want to get involved in. If that means going to Toronto, Montreal or Timbuktu then that's what we need to explore, or we need to accept that we're just going to keep going backwards, wondering why the sport keeps dying, why nobody wants to invest, why nobody wants to watch, and why we keep losing our top talent.

If any club feels threatened by that then sorry, but they've had long enough to demonstrate that they can deliver the change that is needed.

There’s a lot in what you say. But I am not sure where the audience is going to come from if the image stays the same. We have the best product, I am in no doubt about that. We are not going to compete with football, although it is generally a similar social class of audience. Other sports such as cricket or yawnion that are flush with money due to TV are generally pandering to a different audience. I get the opportunity for a lot of corporate hospitality. Almost universally the audience is not that bothered in the product, they want a p/ss up & to be seen at the event. TV advertisers want an audience with money to burn, which is not the usual RL audience. There is far more chance of change by going to Toronto, Montreal or Timbuktu than Leigh.

True.

But a mix of Toronto, Montreal, Timbuktu and Leigh, and Wakey, Cas et al. would offer a far greater diversity. Not the slick product some would envisage but one that could gather an audience because neutrals might actually get behind the underdog, the team representing the American dream, the big city boys or whoever. The main factor that turns me off watching other sports - and I include the NRL in this - is that I really don't give a to$$ who wins. No emotional involvement, see.

ATEOTD this all seems to boil down to how many clubs will be in the top flight and whether the intention is to relegate a number of "heartland" clubs to accommodate our friends from over the Channel and The Atlantic and whether there would still be promotion and relegation from The Championship.

Although 2 Full Time leagues of 10/12 clubs (Super League 1 & 2) seems like a good answer, the 2nd tier, no matter what it's called will never have the same pull, either in terms of revenue or TV exposure, as the top flight and the SL 1 clubs wont want to sacrifice "their share" of the pot.
You can already hear them saying that we need more to compete with Yawnion and The NRL.
Therefore, what we would effectively be doing is reducing the number of top UK rugby league clubs and I would still maintain that, should they make it to SL, relegating Catalan, Toronto or New York would scupper their development.

I'm not entirely sure we have got the product any more.

The product on the pitch, in my view, is worse than it used to be. We've lost what little box office talent we had, we can't attract more and only this morning, we've seen that our product is nowhere near as good as a very similar one on the other side of the world. Even if we compare with English rugby union, do we have it right? The Aviva Premiership has a lower average winning margin than Super League, and it has a greater proportion of games that are won/lost by a margin of one score or less.

Off the field, the sport also needs to ask if it's got it right. I've said earlier in either this or another thread that we used to market ourselves as a "family sport" (which was basically code for "we don't have a hooligan problem"icon_wink.gif, but how many sports genuinely have that problem? Even football has cleaned itself up - it's not a USP. And in 2018, does RL really offer the "day out" that the modern family wants? Sitting on a wooden seat in a crappy stand with a restricted view whilst paying £5 for a crappy boiled burger is not a "family day out". The sort of experience that is on offer at venues like Belle Vue, like The Jungle and (until the bulldozers moved in) at Headingley are not what gets a family with leisure money to spend excited. Is sitting in the car park at Salford "fun for all the family", when they could just go to the Legoland / Sea Life / Ski Slope / various restaurants that are across the road?

I think you're right in that the image is a huge problem and I personally think that SL could benefit from a serious rebrand. But for that to work, all 12 / 14 / however many clubs that want to be involved in that need to bring an equal value to the table. Simply pointing to your couple of hundred away fan following and thinking that justifies your existance in Super League isn't enough. We also shouldn't think that it's wrong to be selective and limit the space we offer in our top competition. This is supposedly a premier sporting competition, not a "everybody gets a trophy" school sports fete.