Taking your example, what if Castleford maximum budget is the 1.65m and not a penny more without putting risk on other areas of the business - even though they CAN spend another 50k, it would endanger normal operating costs.

This puts clubs in a sticky spot. Most fans won't and don't care about the regular running of the club, only results on the pitch. Do they spend the extra to placate the fans, encouraging increased debt and potentially a Bradford style spiral? Or do they not use it and risk the fury of the fans, and potentially the ability to challenge for the sake of still operating?

It is incredibly naive to think this is good for all clubs. It's especially bad for championship clubs in the middle 8s.

It's also bad to a certain extent for the clubs who adopt the rule first. Say Warrington sign Cronk. Hill and Ratchford will be subjected to that time of tempts and offers from other clubs, knowing Warrington can't offer them the same - how long before a club successfully unsettles one? Is a superstar worth unsettling your current best players?

I think if this is to work with overseas players the scouting system needs to be spot on or we could be paying over the odds for mediocrity.

Imagine if the system had been brought in for 2014 & Roy had signed as our marquee player.

At the moment, there's nothing stopping player A working hard, so that he can earn as much as superstar B in the future. There's enough cap space for both if the right deals can be struck,

However, given the ruling of 1 player only, either superstar B needs to move on for player A to earn as much or player A does. To me, I can see that not sitting well with some, especially if other clubs are coming in offering them that space in their team ...

Without the marquee ruling you are left with no option but to sign the Asotasi's of this world. This at least allows you to sign top class players.

Which clubs are willing to pay a salary equal to the top NRL wages remains to be seen.

How would it endanger normal operating costs? The spare £50,000 you could spend on another player would add up to exactly the same amount of money your already paying, but you'd have an extra player.

Sorry magic superbeetle I've just clicked what you mean. Even if it doesn't count on the cap you still have to find an extra £50,000 to spend on the player. Yeah I didn't think of it that way, so yeah it might not be the best for other clubs that don't have the extra money to spend