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

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

- All NRL signings are capped to £200k on the salary cap, regardless of what they earn.

Why all NRL signings? Why not just say all players salarys capped at £200k?

Because if a player is moving within SL (say Watkins moved to St Helens) it makes no difference to the quality of the league.
That measure is designed to try and allow clubs to bring better quality players in from outside if they wish to. It also helps avoid some wage inflation.

What if Watkins moved to St Helens instead of South Sydney? That would help keep quality in SL

Yes but it's also unlikely for a top player to move from one top club to another. I'm struggling to think of many in the SL era. All I can come up with at the moment is Peacock.

There is very very rarely a desire for a top player to move from one top SL club to another.

Not to mention that in this scenario Leeds could use the proposed homegrown allowance to keep Watkins at Leeds.

I actually think it is phrased as NRL signings is more to do with the fact that the article was printed in an Aussie magazine than anything else. I imagine the rules will state non-fed signings when properly written. Otherwise clubs will have a monopoly on the player in the uk (player A signs for club X for 600k, club Y want to sign player A but can't because the 600k would fully count on the cap)

This, along with the paying a homegrown player 201k instead of 175k are the two obvious problems. Along with players like Hill, Whitehead and Walmsley who aren't homegrown yet potential marquees for their club. It would damage the competition to lose these players imo, yet these new rules don't offer them protection...

How do we know Lenaghan will vote in favour of it?

He was quoted in the Wigan Observer this week as saying that he will vote in favour of it.

Taken from the article (it isn't online so can't give a link)

"The 12 top flight clubs will meet in June to decide whether to give a new marquee allowance proposal the green light. And Warriors chairman Ian Lenegan, who has opposed similar ideas in the past, has told the Observer he will be voting in favour of it..." "Lenegan said 'I think it's a good approach, I'll be voting in favour of it. It's a good way to allow the clubs who can afford to pay big money to do so, without murdering them on the salary cap'".

I think we should be encouraging clubs to grow their own players and also have the opportunity to sign the very best players. So I would prefer:
1 player per squad fully exempt from Salary Cap.
Home grown players:
20% of a home-grown player's salary should be exempt from SC for the 1st 5 years after first team debut.
40% of a home-grown player's salary should be exempt from SC if the player has played for the club for more than 5 years.
60% of a home-grown player's salary should be exempt from SC if the player has played for the club for more than 10 years.

This would reward clubs who develop players and retain them at the club. In my club's case, it may have meant we could offer Craig Huby more than other clubs, as only 40% would have counted on the salary cap.