How is the doc going to get around this..

"Clubs will only be allowed to sign a marquee player if they meet clearly-defined affordability criteria based around their income and expenditure."

Those numbers a negligible amount and fixed at that relatively low amount. It is a very maximum of 150k. About 7% of the total cap figure.

Also again. Long serving allowances disadvantage new clubs challenging.

Count up the number of players who have a realistic shout of making the Aussie or Kiwi squads today and compare that number with some of the garbage GB teams we were churning out ten or more years ago.

At a club level - Saints have performance metrics coming out of their ears (Mike Rush will give you chapter and verse on why the club's juniors are much better today should you so wish to ask). I'm sure this is the case at most SL clubs since measurement in myriad facets and sub-facets of the junior training program is one of the big advances in SL.

So [iyou[/i can't then?

Since when was the cap 2.1 million, or is that what Leeds think it is.

7.59493670886% is the exact amount if 'about 7%' is too vague for you.

Answer my question you pedant. Incidentally it is 175k max which is actually 9.19669669669669669669669% of the actual SC. So I hold with my opinion that this will not make much difference other than to make a sugar daddy not want to spend much on youth development as well.

As for clubs having to pass certain Income/expenditure rules (no details available) it could be that the likes of Wakefield and Salford may not be allowed a Marquee player

How funny would that be? Marwan has banged on about this for years, would be great to see him banned from using it. I can imagine his Twitter feed would be good reading.

So many posters in this thread who don't understand what the salary cap is for. The salary cap is to stop clubs from hoarding quality players and buying out the competition a la Man City, not to prevent teams from signing good players. For the Hull fan whinging, your club can also sign a marquee player, the only difference is that your chairman is unambitious.

No it's not. It's for protecting the clubs from their owners chasing short term gain and jeopardising the long term stability of the club.

The long service exemption is 50k. The ets exemption is 100k. That's a 150k. Of 1.975m (1.825+150k) that is about 7.6%

It's also not in the rules for next year. It's specified to apply to 2012,2013,2014 and 2015

What would be interesting would be people's opinions about how their club would use this.

I have no doubt Saints will use it on Roby and free up some cap room to spend on the squad. I can't see us chasing superstars with it.

This thread is nothing to do with the long service rule Smokey, so you are probably breaching the AUP by mentioning it. Now lets get this thread back on track eh and Smokey can go and discuss the long service rule elsewhere

That's not what people are complaining about in this thread though, they are complaining about it making the competition uneven.

SC didn't make it even anyway as some clubs can't pay up to the cap.

If we don't have a marquee player rule, the best players of the lower clubs will still sign for the top clubs.

A marquee player rule gives SL some ammo to try and keep their best players and attract others. Some will still inevitably go to the NRL.

But it's about time SL had some ambition and stop the lower clubs holding the league back in this country while they catch up.