The fact the Aussies had to cheat to beat us in their backyard might suggest that the gap isn't as big as people love to make out.

The fact that we were told our best players were sub-NRL then our best players went over and smashed the NRL might suggest the gap isn't as big as people make out.

Who the hell are you? And what could you possibly want.

Immigrants taking our jobs, that's why we haven't won a World Cup.

That would include the French players: Theodore Fages, Kevin Larroyer, John Boudebza, Mickael Simon and William Barthau?

You're correct, but try getting me excited for an international series/tournament featuring the aussies. It ain't happening.

It's generally the Kiwis (and Samoans!) I look forward to seeing.

With the exception of the last WC Final, where unfortunately the Kiwis just didn't turn up, most recent league internationals have been thrilling affairs, from the WC semis to the Four Nations.

Looking forward to the upcoming Tests.

Marquee allowance or not, it might makeno difference if the NRL gets another big increase in TV money. I say just up the cap and leave it to the clubs how they spend it. www.afr.com/business/media-and-m ... 426-1mtdmk

Marquee allowance or not, it might makeno difference if the NRL gets another big increase in TV money. I say just up the cap and leave it to the clubs how they spend it. www.afr.com/business/media-and-m ... 426-1mtdmk

They would give said team a massive fine and points deduction for circumventing the salary cap

Regards

King James

According to league express, 5 clubs are against any idea of a marquee exemption ... And from the sounds of it even the ones who are in favour aren't entirely sure how it should work!

Not looking likely for 2016 at this point ...

Be interesting to see which clubs are against it - I wouldn't be surprised if its some of the less wealthy ones. I also wouldn't be surprised if Leeds are against it, as we have a supposedly rigid cap structure.

I personally don't have a problem with such an allowance. The main issue is that it needs to be spent on genuine quality, not just 'our side's best player'. Tomkins qualifies. Not sure who else currently in SL? Maybe Hall/Watkins?

Roby would, i'd imagine

He probably deserves it, but the allowance is intended to retain/bring in 'star' players. Roby's unlikely to go anywhere without such a pay rise, so it would seem a bit pointless to give him the allowance.

Roby would fit all the definitions of the marquee exemption without fitting any of the purpose of the marquee exemption - Saints putting him as such would be all about Saints freeing up circa 200k on the cap rather than ensuring Roby was paid enough to stay in SL. But I think this is why even the teams who agree there should be an exemption can't agree - how do you define it?

From a saints point of view, Roby would be a marquee placeholder until Jammer is done with the NRL IMO.

Personally think the RFL need to stop "consulting" the clubs - say rule X is coming in in 2017 - you have enough time, sort yourselves out.

Roby is a perfect example of how to use it.
Let's assume he is paid £180k a year.

And assume Sts were at salary cap and wanted to buy say Simon Mannering (name plucked out of thin air) they'd have to let someone go to get him under the salary cap.
But if they agree to pay Roby £20k more, they are free to expand their team and pay Mannering £180k a year

Will 'home grown' mean British or club trained. If it's club trained I doubt too many will have any worth 200k plus a season.