Unambitious? Why because he voted against the rule putting faith in a salary cap and academies. Our owner has invested a hell of a lot in training facilities for the first team and younger players. Something our last owners wouldn't put a penny too!

Give it a couple of years and people will be moaning when it goes t!ts up and the status quo hasn't changed and Salford are still attracting no more than 3500 fans

It doesn't affect spending on any of those things. You're acting as though the salary cap has been removed altogether. We're talking about an exemption for one player, with huge incentives for that player to be home-grown by the club. Your club could've used the rule to keep Tom Briscoe or Tom Lineham. There's no possible downside to this.

Another death nail in the "development" system of the game in this country. Wasting money on 1 or 2 players whilst the HARD WORK of training and developing players is left to hard working volunteers with little or no help from the "senior" clubs.
Well that's what everyone seems to want so the game carries on.
It's sad to see the slow demise of a game in this country which with the right thinking could have taken the country by storm. The opportunities have been there but then blinkers always seem to have the RL fashion of choice.

Perhaps the death of the 'development system' in this country is necessary. Its hardly like its doing brilliantly.

Seen a it about people arguing that 'clubs can't afford an u21's or reserves but can afford this' but why are we assuming those are good things to spend our money on?

It seems crazy to me that we have on one hand worries about the gap between SL and the lower leagues, and on the other a game struggling for visibility and coverage, yet people are arguing we shouldnt bring in big names until we fund a competition that takes the best young players from the lower leagues to put them in to a competition people wont watch.

I'm not acting as if the salary cap has been removed, if anything id rather the cap was raised a little more.

Far as I'm aware tom lineham still plays for us and as for briscoe he had the chance to re-sign but left it too late

No top class Aussies new Zealand er is going to give up mega bucks to come to Britain to earn less than they are getting back home. It will be more average overseas or the ones like Cronk seeking a last big pay day

This seems to be another situation like the free play rule, people getting upset about something because they don't really understand it properly despite it being fairly straightforward. Do you really think clubs are going to use £175,000 of their salary cap (and pay even more) to sign 'average overseas' players? And if they do that then it's their own fault for being stupid and wasting their money.

As I said, you don't have to start throwing hundreds of thousands of Aussie dollars at players from the NRL (although no doubt that's what your club will do because they don't seem to be able to manage themselves properly). You could've used this rule to keep the likes of Briscoe without impacting the rest of your squad, or use it to resign Danny Brough or somebody. Or if Hull happen to develop any good players in the future with all this apparent spending on the youth system, you would actually be able to make an effort to keep hold of them instead of them going to the NRL or somewhere else. Again, there are literally no downsides to this rule being introduced. Use your brain.

People keep talking about the 'low standard' of SL currently, but is that really the case anyway?

From where I'm sitting, and thinking back to (say) the 2008 WC, when the Aussies looked like they'd score every time they got near our try-line, it seems to me that England are more competitive relative the Aussies and Kiwis than we've been in a long time.

I suppose the real question now is how do you define a Marquee Player? Is there an age restriction on them? A minimum number of international caps or competition wins? Or the number of individual honours received?

I have read this whole thread and I seem to get the gist of it. The gist being that everyone is signing Cooper Cronk.

Well if people are happy watching say Wigan,Leeds, Saints and Warrington win every thing and eventually be the only clubs playing each other then fine.

It's progress I suppose but i doubt if the majority will be interested. It's the way I see the professional game going in this country.

Another person who doesn't seem to have read/understood the rule. There isn't a "definition", it doesn't need defining, it's just a cap exemption for a single home-grown player earning more than £100k or a single non-home-grown player earning more than £175k.

I suppose we can expect a raft of rumours about players moving to RU or the NRL started by their agents in a bid to secure them the "marquee" status and a nice pay rise.....

I don't see a problem with this.

I'd like to see the reserves come back though - so many young players are being lost because they're not given time to develop their games in their early 20s.

I'm cautiously in favour of the rule.
It allows those clubs who can to compete with the NRL and Union for at least some of the top players.

One of the biggest benefits in my opinion is that it opens up more sponsorship opportunities for the marquee player at each club as they're currently restricted by the salary cap.