Neil Baynes would have been one, as you could use his shirt as a tent.

By being the highest paid player in the team.

Not necessarily. I don't think it's been defined specifically, because it seems that it was the concept that was being dicussed rather than the detail.

So, with that in mind, the marquee player is just someone who doesn't count on the salary cap. The detail to be added could be some restrictions on who would qualify, such as stipulating the minimum number of international caps the player should have, for example.

It's a possibility but there's been no suggestion of anything like that so far...With the state of our international game I don't see that particular example being a good decision either in all honesty.

This is exactly the kind of detail that is slowing a final vote.

As mentioned, and used to misrepresent the situation by the Doc, many, if not most chairman are in favour of a marquee player rule.

However, a majority want to know exactly what they are voting for and how the system would work.

Until the Doc can fill the detail out, it ain't gonna happen...but I agree it will, some time soon.

it is an interesting concept, but also a tough one to work out IMO.

personally I think it should be based on the players ability to bring in more revenue.

And that's quantifiable how?

I was thinking the same.

Did any one see super league back chat ? they seemed to be insinuating that a deal was on the table last year from the RFL for a marquee signing but Marwan along with the rest of the clubs rejected it. apologies in advance if i didn't hear it correctly.

just my take on it. you should sign a marquee signing on his x factor, for the chance of bums on sests and shirt sales.

I think he was alluding to how you actually work that out in reality. Like you said, X factor is not a measurable feature and would be open to conjecture. Besides, a marquee player for say Cas or Wakey (No digs intended Cas & Wakey fans!) may be a lot different than a Marquee player for Leeds or Wigan due to how much pull each Club has and how much it can spend. It means that a top Club with money could attract an Aussie International and Clubs lower down couldn't. Are the Lower Clubs marquee players not marquee players because they are 'lesser' players due to your 'X Factor' measurement?

like I said, its going to be tough to work out what and who you class as Marquee players

I think of players like Slater, Cronk, Inglis and Thurston as top marquee players but not so muchCostigan, Burns and Keating

opinion will definitely be split on this IMO

I think the easiest answer is that a marquee player is what each Club deems it to be. It could be an International, or a homegrown star, or simply a high wage earner. Let's take Clarke at Cas. If there was a marquee player in effect Cas could have made him it, got external sponsors to contribute and they could have held off bigger Clubs sniffing around, like Warrington and he'd cost less on the cap. All hypothetical but you get the idea. It could be used in a number of different ways depending on the needs of each Club.

Indeedy. The simplest solution is to just allow each club to identify their own marquee player who doesn't count on the cap using whatever criteria they want. This then frees money from the amount allowed under the cap to invest in, say, more young players.

However, until it gets voted in, the details will never get thrashed out.

Whilst I'm against marquee exemption at this precise moment in time (personally I'd give it a few years), I think rather than dictating who qualifies as a marquee, what could be better is declaring anyone can be classified as a marquee, but (marquee salary - 100k) has to also be put aside for youth development, community work etc on top of whatever is already spent in those areas - but equally then to sign a player on 500k (minimum to sign a better aussie who could still play nrl imo) - a club has to prove they can afford an extra 800k, which is a lot in anyones book...