It doesn’t just restrict the best talent coming in, it restricts the ability to retain the home grown talent too.

I can fully understand why it was voted against by certain clubs. The decision making process for the majority will be based solely on their own financial position. Any negative impact on the growth and promotion of the sport as a whole is just an unfortunate consequence to them.

I would have thought that the increase in Sky income to clubs would have made this change possible.

Whilst I'm not particularly bothered about the marquee signing rule, it was interesting to note that this weekend saw the lowest average attendance for a superleague weekly round since 2006.
Has the steady loss of big name players contributed to this? Whilst I'm not saying the marquee signing would solve this alone at least it would bring a bit of interest and publicity to the game, which seems to currently be lacking.

To be fair , wigan , leeds , saints and wire all had away fixtures this round

And there was some people on bikes clogging the road in and around Yorkshire.

I haven't paid a massive amount of attention to this one - but what precisely is the proposal for the rule?

That every Superleague club can have one marquee player that doesn't count against the existing salary cap.



It may be a democratic voting process but is the outcome communistic ideology?

But how is that defined? Or can a club literally just exempt any player they choose?

Presumably the highest paid player gets counted as "the marquee" player?

Or is there some other proposal?

Probably. Create a level playing field for everybody. Lowest common denominator .
This avoids the capitalist trap of the evil Dr K .

After the euphoria of the World Cup and the exposure that it generated it has to be worrying that attendance figures are falling so dramatically.Surely any initiative that tries to redress the situation would be welcomed but it seems as usual that sections of the RL community are content to plod along with the same old formula.
Why there is such a fear of trying something new is beyond me but not surprising.

Well to have this marquee player will never get through, they may as well just do away with the salary cap if it comes about...
Its open to exploitation from year 2 of it happening and that's why it never will.
I will give you an example
Billy slater agrees a 1 year deal at Salford worth £3million
7 months later.......
Billy slater has signed a contract extension for 2 more years in a deal worth around 50p a week that's him of the salary cap for 2 years still earn't around £3million for 3 years
Greg Inglis has signed a 1 year deal with Salford believed to be worth £3 million
7 months later....
Greg Inglis has signed a 2 year extention with Salford believed to be worth 50p a week
Daz Clark has signed a 1 year deal with Salford...... You get the picture

Ditto

When Salford signed David Watkins the attendance for his first game was around 9000, compared to our normal 3000 and away attendances also increased.
Marquee signing would put bums on seats at every club, although I can understand the poorer clubs stance on it

No surprise at all from me,

Dont know how u paste what sumone says to my reply on hear,

But sumone said sumthing about , that SKY shud tell the RFL to lay the law down on this, do me a favour, the RFL have buried there heads so far in the sand there cuming out in Aussie, and still cant see the sunshine,

As for some of the chairman / owners of the super league clubs all i can say in one word is NAAFI. they just happy to plod along.

All the gud DR can is keep trying .

When all the best players have gone down under or to union, and there are no more youngsters cuming through maybe just maybe the chairmen/ owners will wake up.

But im afraid it will be far to late , i give it till the end of the current contract with sky before super league is no more. i hope im wrong.