There's No way Ian lenegan will vote for it, he must be the tightest cheap skate in wigan, that's why we only sign average players and youngsters he likes to run wigan on the cheap

Well there is a 50 odd page thread about him on here, full of people who actively hate RU telling us how they have gone out of their way to watch him play a terrible game.

Fair enough. GI probably a bad example in this context. However, we probably wouldn't actually be able to compete with the NRL and RU at that level of player.

Even with these exemptions, SL is still more likely be aiming around the 2nd tier of former internationals; so we are just likely to see wage inflation for the likes of Lance Hohaia etc... rather than attracting real marquee players.

Also, questions around where the money is coming from. Even if a club can sign GI and pay him £500k per annum (plus other costs), they will realistically need to attract 5,000 - 10,000 more people to every home game to cover the costs.

So comes back to what problem are we trying to solve.....Keep British players in the game? Increase the standard of SL by bringing loads of foreigners over? Keeping Dr Koukash quiet?

The home-grown marquee exemption could also create some silly but necessary (due to cap exemptions) wage rises within individual squads. For example Wigan make O'Loughlin their "home-grown marquee" player on 201k. The squad (not including the exempt O'Loughlin) costs 30k below cap and the next highest wage in the squad is 175k for Charnley. O'Loughlin retires so Wigan no longer have his exemption and have 30k to replace him with. A bought in replacement wont be home-grown so to be able to spend more than 30k on the replacement Charnley or somebody else home-grown gets a hefty wage increase (due only to O'Loughlin's retirement) so that Wigan can use the cap exemption. This could then cause resentment in the squad from other players who didn't receive any wage rise.

Would SKD, Shillington, Rapira fall under second tier of signings? These are the names currently being banded about, and I suspect that's some of the clubs being pre-emptive with the rules coming in (which is positive as it would suggest there is support for it).

I think the problem this rule addresses is simply the negativity surrounding English rl at the moment.

Have to agree with you here.

By exempting one or maybe 2 players from the cap, all this does is raise the cap and for the top 4/5 clubs this is ok BUT, the rest aren't capable of spending the full cap anyway, so a player exemption is irrelevant.
Surely the simple solution is just to increase the cap but, only for those that can afford it.

The exemption idea is yet another gimmick.

What we need to do, is make the sport more attractive to blue chip sponsors and then the whole game could benefit.

Those are the types of names that we have been attracting for years and that we will still attract, however instead of paying them £100-£150k, clubs will now be paying them £200k plus.

No they won't. Think about it, the demand for a player worth £150k isn't going up, there's absolutely no difference to those kind of players worth sub £200k. Their worth isn't inflated at all. What advantages would club get by doing that?

This exemption is aimed at the next tier of quality, and enables to pay say a £300k player exactly what they're worth. Only under this proposed rule, they won't have £300k of cap space taken up by one player, it'll be capped at £200k and therefore makes it more attractive in the interests of building a strong squad.

It's a fudge let's not pretend it isn't. It's an attempt to allow those who want an increase, who want to sign stars and keep them here when we have them and please those who can't afford it so don't want to lose the advantage an SC gives them, and those who don't want to spend any more. It's basically the people who the SC works in favour of admitting the SC doesn't work but not losing all the things it gives them

Its all okay, but it just seems like its contradicting the genuine value of the SC, which is keeping clubs out of financial trouble.

For me, we'd be much better with a "brown bag rule", allowing 3rd party companies or individuals (such as Koucash's Stable) to directly fund players wages and take responsibility for the contract away from the club. If Dr Mar wants to sign Sonny Bill Williams for £1million a year and he's willing to stump up the cash, I say let him, but you can't trust the clubs them selves to stay out of trouble if they get given this freedom.
Bring in a ruling like this and watch the clubs exploit it, running around gathering sponsors and rich friends of chairmen who want to cut their tax bill by funding/boosting players wages.

Now that is a good idea Monkey. Cracking idea. You'd have to cap it so we didn't end up with the Scottish Premier League and one or two clubs winning everything. Perhaps combining the two ideas, have a marquee player exemption that is limited in both number and value, but also tie this portion of said contract legally to a third party who cannot be the club or it's owner (As if the owner gets sent under by the overspend, so would the club).

Get rid of the Salary Cap,
Allow the clubs to spend what they want how they want.
One proviso.
Should any club go into administration they are immediately thrown out of the RFL/SL, no ifs not buts.

That would focus a few minds and also kill the sport at professional level for a number of clubs in less than 5 years unless they are wise and business like.

Never happen though.

I see where you come from, but it would not focus minds. For those who see themselves as custodians then fine they would not run their clubs to the wall. For those who just want a winning team at any cost they would max out the club as it will be a limited company and then when it eventually goes wrong they can just walk away, let the company fold and the RL clubs is lost.

It's been done before when there was no cap and would be done again. Look at Bradford and the financial incompetence that went on there, board members and shareholders not talking and actively moving against those in charge.

Sport is not a business, if it's a business then I have no interest in watching it, I can watch the stock market every day and make money from watching that. I go to watch sport to be 'yes entertained' but also to follow my local team.

Some sporting clubs can be businesses, but not all of them. If you want a business model then you have to go for a highly regulated sport like the NFL, were team are businesses, but they are also limited by the franchise model.

In football it's total acceptable as the supply of clubs to replace the fallen is almost unlimited. In RL, when teams like Bradford fall, it hits the sport a lot harder. Just look how many people still say we should not have let Bradford go down and that they should have been protected for the greater good.

I just think in RL it is a complex equation between open competition and protecting the sport. Protect it too much and it becomes a closed shop scenario and clubs act as though they are safe for ever. Make it open competition and clubs over reach themselves because when they all spend more the income coming in does not match the outgoings.

Good Idea....as you say, It'll never happen but if wealthy owners want to bankroll success, then let them. If they walk away and their clubs fold, so be it.....I reckon we'd be left with a 10 team competition inside 5 years with all 10 being run as businesses with the aim of self sustainability.

As an aside, I find it amusing that Koukash on one hand bemoans losing 200k+ a year on his stadium contract, but on the other would happily pay 5 times that for SBW in the (misguided) belief he'd ad 50k to the seasons gates and therefore pay for himself.

Ian Lenehan is voting for it so that means Wigan can afford it ,I just wish he'd spend some this season