I think it's important for the whole of SL that at least the marquee exemption is brought in as swiftly as possible to try and keep pace with RU (and the NRL) regardless of our ability at the moment to take advantage of it, I'm sure the Doc would find a way to make it work for us, even if it meant that it was 2016 before we did so. I'd also say that to work properly it would need an exemption from the non-fed rule too.

I also think the salary cap should increase at the same time (puts tin helmet on), it's simply not making good financial sense as a sport to keep it at the same level anymore and the argument that some clubs can't afford to spend up to the cap is not a viable reason to do so. My reasoning is that if you don't attract talent, then you don't attract crowds and you don't attract lucrative sponsorship ergo the net income to the game reduces, clubs can afford less therefore supporting the argument that the salary cap needs to stay the same. Ultimately, it's a self defeating argument and could lead to an ever decreasing revenue stream.

Even if a SC increase would mean that you'd end up paying the same players more money, I still think that would be a short term effect but the long term effect would be that players would find SL a more attractive proposition. Also, to counter the inevitable argument about paying current players more to do the same thing, I'm baffled as to why do some folk think that current players get paid enough already, surely even RL players deserve a pay rise every so often?

I've said it many times but a Marquee signing by every club in the comp would be a good idea, the RFL/SL should insist however that an equal amount to that players wages is committed to be spent on that clubs youth development.

That way we get the best talent either coming or staying in the short term but there is also increased investment in the betterment of the game over here in the long run.

Does anyone have any figures if the crowds increased when we signed Gary Jack, who at the time was just about the best full back in the world and one hell of a brilliant player bettered only by Gibbo

The concept is if a club wants a Marquee player they need to invest more into youth development. This would be over and above what is already spent, there is no scenario when a club can spent enough on youth development.

Well over 50% of Wigan's first team squad are products of their academy, and there can't be too many other clubs in Super League who haven't got one or more Wigan academy products in their squads. Leaving aside some vague notion of a club never being able to spend enough on youth development, what more do you think they can realistically do?

By linking youth development to the marquee player, you're forcing those clubs that already invest in youth development to invest even more - in all likelihood taking them way past the point where they experience diminishing marginal returns - because other clubs don't invest enough. Penalising them for the failures of others, effectively.

In addition, by making the marquee player 50% more expensive, you're restricting it to even fewer clubs and driving an even bigger wedge between the haves and the have-nots.

Youth development is massively important to the sport, and yes, more should be spent on it, but linking it to the marquee player doesn't seem to be a fair and equitable way of achieving it.