And just like the Antipodeans who come over here saying it wasn't for the money, when our lads go down under its because they want to prove themselves at the top level.

All SL clubs have been mandated to have youth development arrangements. But some have been more successful than others. While it is a fact that some clubs have first pick of the crop and that is based on their success, the criteria upon which the youth development arrangements in a club are judged by the RFL are various, and not solely about the activities of the Youth Development department itself.

Alan Hunte, Chris Coop, et al, do a great job, in my opinion. The major criticism the RFL have of Salford's Academy is the disconnect that appears to exist between the Academy and the first team. All Academy products, Fages, Evalds, Hope, J Walne, A Walne, Davidson, Ford, Tyson, Owen all train with the first team. Sort of. There is still an "us and them" mentality about these kids and the, so called, superstars who have been bought in. The path to them becoming regular first team players is anything but clear. Some don't know who or where they will play until, literally, hours before. And while the club buys in players of similar age and ability to themselves, they can't believe their prospects are so good!

I think I mentioned it once before, but on a particular night, Salford, Wigan, Saints and Leeds were playing. My son and I totted up the number of home grown players in each team. Wigan, Saints and Leeds showed 10, 11 and 12. I don't remember which was which, and it doesn't really matter anyway. Salford fielded 2 home grown players!

MK would love to have the support those other clubs attract and some of it is down to there being so many home grown lads. But it's chicken and egg. Show some success, attract enough attention from aspiring young players and you're on your way. The trouble is that Salford is playing catch up and the issue won't be solved overnight.

To those in rugby league who believe that we can invest properly in Youth development AND buy in Marquee players, I would ask where the funding might be found to do both.

To those who believe that the football Premier League is so fantastic, I would ask why our national side is so lamentable. Brazil is nursing its wounds from a disastrous semi final, but as bad as they might have appeared, they still got there, whereas our team failed at the first hurdle. Our rugby league side does the same, for the same reasons.

When we wake up and smell the coffee, we'll realise that we CAN produce high class, competitive rugby league from the talent which is being produced by our amateur clubs. This in turn will lead to bigger crowds and foster greater participation throughout the game. Those benefits will enable a higher salary cap (introduced to try to prevent clubs becoming insolvent, but clearly not meeting that intention) and reduce the attraction of RU and NRL.

And we will have a sufficient pool of players to enable us to beat the antipodeans.

Actually both Cashley and Kallum started their rugby at Salford Juniors before the Juniors merged with Eccles. They then went to other clubs when they were a little older. If in doubt ask Adam Neill, he played in the same Salford Juniors team as Kallum.

Yes, them 5 consecutive years where you reached the grand final must have been a hard slog. The salary cap is levelling the playing field though, honest.

Good to see you stuck with your club through such hard times.

I think you're perhaps mixing up the salary cap and the marquee exemption. The salary cap does help even up the competition and should definitely stay, although the fact that it doesn't seem to be rising with inflation is a bit of a concern. The problem with the salary cap, though, is that it restricts the gene pool that clubs can pick players from, because it effectively prevents clubs from bringing in overseas players from the top echelons of the sport, and it hampers efforts to keep hold of the top players we produce over here. As a result, wealthy clubs prey on the less wealthy clubs to plug gaps in their squads. We've seen it happen to us when we were dirt poor, and now we're seeing it happen to Castleford. For all the success you've had this season, you're now losing Sneyd, Hauraki, Huby (probably) and Clark (probably) to wealthier clubs. Now, if we allowed clubs to have one - and only one - player who doesn't count on the salary cap, we aren't being quite so restrictive with our gene pool. We open up the possibility that, for the sake of argument, Warrington would look in the NRL for a hooker, and target, say, Cameron Smith. So, what would give the more even competition: a Warrington with Cameron Smith and a Castleford with Daryl Clark, or a Warrington with Daryl Clark and a Castleford with Scott Moore? Which would you be more likely to travel to watch?

A marquee exemption doesn't necessarily mean a less equal competition.

I agree that more effort - much more - needs to be put in to developing players ourselves. It's not good that, realistically, only Saints, Leeds and Wigan are producing enough players to field a first team full of them. Marwan identified the problem early on, and the lack of a pipeline from the academy to the first team was one of the things Shane Flanagan was being brought over to address before visa problems kiboshed it.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still be looking at what happens at the top level. At the moment, the pinnacle of the sport is the NRL and we're a pretty distant second. The disparity is now so large that we're losing a disproportionate number of internationals to the NRL. It weakens the standard of the ESL, and for all the young players we produce, we still have too many drawn to the NRL to better themselves. What can we do to keep them here or to attract top Aussies over in their place? Although, to be honest, I'm pretty neutral about the idea of a marquee exemption (even though I possibly appear always to be arguing in favour of it, it's only because I find the arguments against easier to find fault with), I'm struggling to think of a better idea.

They might have rejected the Marquee player idea but here's one I'm looking forward too seeing play. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28226937 Cracking player.

They might have rejected the Marquee player idea but here's one I'm looking forward too seeing play. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/28226937 Cracking player.

Actually, about 10 years ago he was really good.

Haha, I was being kind! He scored a few tries at the Cowboys but pretty much peaked during his time at Canterbury.

Obviously a replacement for Leon Pryce who's off to Hull. One experienced player for another.

Going on what Shaun Wane has said about the subject then you would assume Wigan voted against it. Does any one know which teams were in favour ?

From a Wigan perspective I could fully understand if they did vote no. Like a handful of top clubs they are a magnate for the best young kids and have all the systems, experience and resourses in place to develop them.

I think the philosophy of the top clubs is simple, develop as many young players as possible and compliment this with a few top quality overseas players and then raid the poorer clubs of any emerging talent if neccesary, to fill any gaps. Why vote for a marquee allowance and spend a few hundred grand a year more if you are already succesful and don't need to?

As for who voted yes or no, it seems to have been kept very quiet.

You're winding us up that you don't know !
The last guy associated with that name is currently keeping a low profile in one of HM correctional establishments, though "there's room in his cell for 2",as the old song goes