You talk about what you see as a marquee player for SL, and you’re throwing names about such as Slater and Thurston. Thurston is on 1 Million AUS dollars a season – Works out at around 550 K a year, Now unless he has a dying wish to play in ESL (Why on earth would anyone from the NRL) I would imagine if you chuck a good 200 thousand pounds on top of that he might even start to consider it, Even then NQC would could just match that in a heart beat.

Even then Money a side, why would he trade in playing in the best league in the world, playing in front of big crowds – Brilliant press coverage into what we call a `Professional` sport that’s failing big time – In fact the only reason 12 out of 14 teams are still running is the fact that they have millionaire backers that could at any point pull their money out of the club.

This is no way a dig at Salford and Dr, I’ve said for years if Ken Davey pulled out tomorrow where would that leave the Huddersfield players? Unpaid, looking for a new club – To be fair ourselves (Wakefield) & Bradford having painted the British game in a good light at all but I’m afraid at the moment the exactly the way it is.

In reality the marquee players we should be talking about are players that are to a NRL Standard, and that would actually get into their teams over there.

Id like to say one day that we could compete with AUS in terms of money in the game, and fan base but in reality that`s not going to happen - It`s been pushed and pushed by the RFL, i think with the removal of franchises even they have finally accepted it`s just a northern game.

I think the marquee players Marwan is talking about are NRL standard players. He's made genuine bids for Sam Tomkins and SBW, and wanted to bid for Sam Burgess but needed the marquee player exemption to do so. Had the marquee player exemption been voted in, he already had a player lined up and ready to come over. Word on the street is that player was Billy Slater. This might be true or it might not be, but given the calibre of player he's been chasing, it doesn't sound too far fetched.

It's true that the NRL is a better competition, so much so that our better players are attracted there, both by the standard of competition and by the money on offer. There's a circular relationship between these two: the more money you can offer, the better the player you attract. The better the player you attract, the better the competition and the more money you bring in. The more money you bring in, the more you can offer to the better players. The NRL are on this path, while we, despite the new TV deal, are on the opposite path.

So, we can either accept that this is the way things have to be until some future, unspecified date when suddenly everything in the northern hemisphere will turn out rosy (the Castleford argument, basically), or we can make a stand now. Making a stand has to start with bringing better players over here, and that has to start with tempting them away from where they are now by offering barrow loads of money. That's the marquee exemption, in a nutshell.

rlSt Helens Rationale For Oppositionrl

I think the statement goes all around the world to get the message across but I 100% agree with rejecting it.

Hypothetical at the moment but the Doc said on Sky before the Saints game that he would pay 200k to buy a teams marquee player slot. How would this work if Salford signed an extra marquee player on say a 3 year contract? Would he be offering 200k a year for 3 years totaling 600k to a club like Cas, Wakey or Bradford?

Also what would happen if one of those teams were relegated and lost the marquee allowance?

Still wouldn't help him get a visa with a criminal record ...

What if he married a girl from Castleford?

Of course you do.That is because you dislike Marwan Koukash and have posted your dislike on the Saints forum.

After losing James Graham to the NRL your club seem to have failed to produce any prop from your 'front yards' and only got Amor due to financial problems at Wakefield.

That was after your marquee player left for the NRL.

Even back then you didn't win too much.The winners,Leeds,agree with Dr K.

And we still have a chance to re-sign our "marquee" in James graham with the home grown rule next year. The home grown rule (which is the marquee exemption with some conditions essentially) is the start of sure and consistent progress to keep our top talent in our competition. (As an aside, I wouldn't suggest you have a pop at saints home grown - we have consistently produced some of the best players around)

From a selfish point of view, were capable of creating talent, as well as bringing in talent. Our biggest flops haven't been British players we've brought in from other clubs - it's "marquees" - who would of thought 4 years ago, within 3 games we can say Kyle Amor is a better signing than josh perry (who was at this point training with the Australia squad before the Anzac test.)

From an England point of view, 3 clubs provide more than half of the England's squads this year. The "marquee" rule would do nothing to redress this, and it needs to be, before we're going to be truly competitive on an international stage.

From a game point of view, the more players playing at a high level creates a better pool of talent for us at all levels. That starts with the u23s. Once we have more than 3 clubs consistently creating talent, we can start to look at bringing in extra rules to capture more talent from elsewhere. As it is now, our amateur clubs and youth are far from being exhaustively picked at!

Neither castleford and saints statements state they will forever be against the idea, but now is not the right time, and there are a lot more, better ways to improve our competition as of right now than throwing money at a name (which by the way 80% of the NRL is still more than affordable in the current cap, Trent Barrett, Matt Gidley, Danny buderus et al prove that)

If rather lose Graham than try and break the bank to keep him. If we offered him crazy money as "marquee signing" we might not have been able to tie lomax, Turner, Swift, Roby, Walamsley etc down on long term deals.

One man doesn't make a team.

The national side is a topic for another day but no longer having an Under 23's may be part of that problem.




One particular man in a number of teams may be more interesting for spectators and for the sport.
Dr K has quoted the increase in attendances to watch the top players in the recent World Cup and how the best 'English players' are leaving both the country and the sport.
I also believe participation levels and funding for grassroots levels have fallen.

Dr K is trying to work from the top down on behalf of the sport and his club.

If you are content/happy with the status quo,fine.

I am just pleased someone is showing an interest rather than sitting back thinking all is well in the rugby league world.

So you honestly think saints fans will flood to Langtree park to see James Graham back but in the process lost Roby, walmsley, sia, lomax, makinson, Turner, etc


Maybe for the first game but when we start losing each week, the fans will stop going and asking why sacrafice the team for one player.

If the good Dr has the good of the game at heart, why doesn't he campaign for local home grown players to not count for a % of their salary on the cap? Surley that would have the game at heart and not campaigning for him to be able to spend spend spend on all the stars.

Why would they lose them in the process? In most cases the teams would be spending up to the cap as well as paying the marquee player. It would make absolutely no sense to pay one player a ton of money and then decide not to spend the salary cap thus losing players.

The home grown allowance thing is definitely a good thing but on its own it's still not going to solve the problem of the very top players being lured away to Union and the NRL. The only way to combat that is to either bring in a marquee player rule or to start thinking about an increase in the salary cap. Other leagues like the NRL and the NFL continue to increase their cap over time but we've stuck with pretty much the same/very similar amount over a long period of time and it's having a negative effect.

The cap isn't the issue here. The clubs are going bust without the option of the marquee rule mate. I can see how it looks from a Salford fans eyes with the likes of burgess or SBW but I'm looking at it a a rugby fan point of view and the future of the game.

In the current climate it's pure madness to even consider giving clubs a rope to hang themselves.

Then it becomes a race to the bottom.
It's the old argument against the RFL supporting expansion ,rather than Doncaster and Batley.
Give it a go,what is there to lose. As you say,clubs are hanging themselves anyway. Ive supported Rugby League all my life and essentially nothing has changed,and in truth it won't .
We will never overtake Union so let's have some excitement along the way.
Progress has to be 'top down'. The idea that the grass roots are the future is idealistic cloud cuckoo land.I wish it wasn't so .
The future is through the gates and tv exposure and that comes from signing,and not losing,box office players.
Such exposure will give the grass roots a big boost