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.

Doesn't work, we've seen big names come over, bit of hype for a short period, player leaves things return to normal. There is no sustainability to spending money on these signings. Clubs would be better spending 200k on a decent marketing strategy.

Who have we seen come over that was really big and not have it make an impact? Johns was massive for warrington, When Ali came over for Leeds he made a huge splash, none RL fans were interested in watching 'the Michael Jordan of rugby league', leeds set the british record for attendance average that year.

We would get far more than £200k in free marketing signing GI,

For a week. Tell me how sustained was warringtons crowds and media presence after John's left?

He didn't say it was sustained, just that while those marquee players were here, there was a noticeable increase in crowds and coverage. Which is the point of this allowance, to attract that calibre of player again.

No way Gary Hetherington is going to vote for an increase in spend on players wages - if he had his way the salary cap would be reduced.

Pity we don't have a salary cap on CEO's perhaps then they may take a more benevolent view about players earnings and the need to increase revenues to support them

Signing GI would be a pretty good marketing strategy