I love the way you've taken one small phrase out of that whole post and then applied it to the situation at Salford so deliberately making mischief and not debating the topic at hand.

My post is talking about the game as a whole not just Salford, it's about the whole package of Super League, the rest of RL and the long term future of the game as a fully professional sport at the top level. It's about competing financially with a rival (but inferior) code that now filches all our best talent because we refuse to level the playing field financially for fear that a club will go bust. If we carry on like we are, it won't be long before fringe SL players will need to go part-time and before you know it, we are no longer a fully professional sport.

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.