The examples of Cameron Smith and Billy Slater were used purely because they're IMO the most available Australian NRL superstars at the moment due to their contracts. However you've also got James Graham who I believe comes to the end of his current deal at the end of the year, at the moment which clubs could realistically bring him back? Probably non, because of the restrictions on the cap. Do we risk losing him for another 2/3 years to the NRL or even worse RU? We'll be in the same position when Sam Tomkins contract is close to running down, or Sam Burgess' unless we make the required changes now.

I agree with the homegrown rule, but that is a seperate issue entirely from the marquee allowance. Plus more money for either Burgess, Tomkins or Graham wouldnt have prevented them from leaving the Super League for the NRL. Whilst a pay increase must have been attractive, the prospect of playing in the NRL is far greater due to the standard of the competition, the publicty it receives and so on. We need to raise the profile of the game over here, raise the standards and take it to the next level because we've been stagnating for far too long now.

seems an odd argument in favour of not having a marquee allowance that whilst we havent had a marquee allowance we havent signed any of the very top players, but have signed some of the 2nd tier players.

I think £1m a year would change most players minds, Sonny Bill moved to France to take up a different sport for not a huge amount more.

Saints could match any offer for Graham with the home grown rule, but can we afford it? Probably, but i doubt our chairman would go for it as he probably doesnt think any player is worth over £400k a year

And the race to the bottom continues, I can't believe so many call the RFL and Big Nige when their own clubs are run by clowns.

Irony not your strong point is it.

So Wire possibly the best run club in SL and a Keighley fan has the temerity to question it as irony, do you even know what that means are you just being simple?

Golden ticket was a silly idea, marquee was a good one

I'd much prefer amendments to the salary cap for long serving at club players, i.e from say 6 seasons on from when player has made is 20th league appearance only 70% of his salary is counted on the cap and after 10 seasons only 25% is counted on the salary cap. This encourages clubs to develop players and also in time should see players wages rising.

The Marquee exception would do little to nothing to grow the game of RL in the UK.

Assume all teams had one player. How does that get anyone in Birmingham watching a game? How does it inspire a youngster in Scotland to start playing.

I accept it would allow Salford and others to increase their player base and Saints would follow suit if it was voted in. But in reality, the expense spent would attract no more money to the SL and money is what SL needs. It would produce no more grass roots clubs outside the heartlands. It would not provide a gateway into the nations sporting consciousness.

It would be nothing more than a vain attempt to placate fans who are desperate for simple solutions to complex problems. The growth of the game geographically and mentally will not happen without hard work and boots on the ground where we don't currently have them.

Why don't we make it simple?

If you buy a marquee player above the salary cap, you forfeit 50% your Sky distribution for the benefit of all other clubs, which is shared between other clubs.

Two players - 100% of your Sky distribution.

If Koukash wants it - let him pay for it.

Koukash would jump on that if it was offered to him, he's perfectly willing to pay for it.

The marquee player would have been a great idea and it would keep some of our better players in our game, 12 teams in SL next season, i dont believe the RFU or NRL are targetting that many of our players, so 1 marquee player per club is surfice

the golden ticket is too much, Koukash maybe able to purchase the lesser fortunate clubs tickets, this would just make it a big divide between the big spenders and the ones who manage their books accoredingly, we already have a gap betweent the top 5 or 6 clubs in quality, why would we want to make it wider

well done to the clubs who voted against it!

True.

Hence why I think the tax idea is much better than this golden ticket.

If you pay one marquee player over the top, 50% of the amount you pay is given to all other clubs too.

Therefore if Koukash signs a player for £400k over the cap then £200k is given to the other (then 11) clubs, so potentially a total £2.6m outlay max.

Or if other clubs want to use it (say the other 4 clubs voting in favour of his proposal) use theirs, then they forfeit the right to the money (so Koukash's outlay is now £1.8m total).

Then if the other clubs spend £100k each on a marquee player over the cap, same for them £50k to other clubs). Total outlay each £450k.

This would provide other clubs with £400k, which would either stabilise the club and help invest in youth and infrastructure. Or they can ring-fence it and use it as their fund for a marquee player the following season?

So you don't think the likes of Cameron Smith, Billy Slater, Sam Tomkins, Sam Burgess and so on would attract more money to Super League? I'll tell you it will. I guarantee you'd get a much bigger competition sponsorship deal for a start. It would also improve the product on the pitch, shame we sold ourselves down the river for the next 8 years with that one though. Each club would attract a much higher calibre of sponsors too, as well as the inevitable interest and increase in attendances to see such players.

Andrew John's at Wire for 3 games, no one remembers it, no one ever talks about it, it was quiet in Warrington, none ofthe papers mentioned it, none of the opposition fans wanted to see him either, it was all hush hush, I bet you all think I'm lying it was so low key.

Oh yeah that's right I'm talking b*ll*cks