If there is spare money available it would be better used bringing homegrown players through. Building younger players and helping them progress to the top flight. Giving one "Super Star" a greatly inflated salary is not going to make the rest of the team also Super stars. Todd Carney being a case in point. Certainly a star player when fit but Catalans also have some very talented players to back him up would he have been a marquee player if he'd waited a couple of years before signing for Dragons? As for signing big names from NRL increasing interest from the general public IMO the general public who aren't interested in RL now will not give flying damn about a big name signing from Aus.

Stupid idea which could lead to trouble for some teams in the future with regards to unrest in the camp due to over inflated wages of a team mate. Just sums Koukash up does this idea, he came into SL with a blaze of glory and threw good money after bad always spouting off in the media about what he was going to do and how Salford were going to win things and where has that got him and his club?
Luckily for us we've got an established set up from academy to first team which is now bearing fruit after such a long time in building, to go with that we've got a very settled and accomplished first team who are top 4 material and we should be able to ride the storm and maybe not need a marque signing to keep up with the teams that chose to go down that route.

The argument they put forward is that it will help stop us losing our top players to union and the NRL such as Burgess and Tomkins who have left before

Club statement on the change. Can't say I disagree with anything they said.

"Huddersfield Giants wish to reassure all supporters of the Giants that they did not “embrace the marquee player rule” as implied by an RFL press release yesterday.
We believe that the Marquee concept is fundamentally flawed and have consistently argued against it. Our view is that it is against the interests of home grown players and the equality of the Super League competition. The idea of a Club being able to pay an unlimited amount outside of the salary cap for a so called marquee player had already been rejected on three previous occasions and a third of clubs still voted against it on Wednesday. The fact is that the proposal put forward by the RFL executive was subjected to an initial amendment and then further amendment after clubs in favour were unable again to agree on the detail. The result was a cobbled together compromise which could still not gain the unanimous support of the Super League clubs.
Giants Managing Director Richard Thewlis who attended the Super League meeting on behalf of the Huddersfield Giants said: “We have never been in favour of the Marquee Player proposal and I have lost count of the number of different ideas that have been floated, tabled and discussed, not one of which has ever gained a majority prior to yesterday’s meeting and even then tactical voting was needed to get any semblance of agreement through. This decision creates an uneven playing field as only two or three of the richest clubs will be able to afford to take advantage of it just at time when spectators are enjoying greater uncertainty of outcome which is delivering closer games and greater excitement along with the tightest league table ever. The Marquee player rule will give an unfair advantage to the richer clubs which the salary cap was designed to prevent. In my view it does nothing for the development of English players and is against the long term interests of the game.”

the argument is Rot, the players will already have left before they become "marquee"
Already a large number of junior players are defecting to union as the union clubs are now starting to run more junior sides and have better facilities to offer than many amateur league sides.
the same three clubs that currently win the prizes on a regular basis will be the only clubs to afford a "marquee" player and so will be the only ones to cash in on any potential revenue ...... and be able to afford a marquee player.
That wont attract spectators to the sport in general, low crowds, one sided games, lack of growth, so why would players rather play league?

It worries me when I agree with every word Thewlis has to say - but I do. This benefits the few with no benefits to the many, the wider game or the future of the game. Of all the changes needed to Rugby League in this country, this wouldn't reach the Top 100 in my priority list.

It's hard to argue with any of the club statement, I don't see it making any difference at all the same clubs who have won everything will continue to do so, There may be a few more quality youngsters come available from the likes of Wigan ( we have done very well from them in the past ). we'll have to wait and see.

The one thing it will not do, is stop our players going to Union, It has left league way behind in every aspect other than on the field ( and that's debatable with the super twelve teams ) Whether we like it or not they know how to run their sport, they are a truly world wide sport that is awash with money, I don't care how good a player is at League, if Union come along and offer him the right deal he will be off, Just like Harris, Robinson, Farrell ,Edwards and countless others, even Sir Kevin.

If our best players continue to go to Union ( which they will ) and we just ship in Aussies who are past their best it will be a disaster. I do want to watch top class players, but will we get them.

I can see the argument for developing more youngsters, but the more you do ,the more Union will take and they will take the cream.

we will have to watch this space i suppose

but as a Giants fan its not something to get excited about, maybe if your a warrington/salford fan it is..some league fans may also look forward to seeing some quality players come in or be kept in SL

As pointed out by a Cas fan - the NRL can't stop their players going to union-so this marquee signing rule certainly won't!!!

The fanzine are looking to do an article about this in the next issue I wondered if there was anyone on here interested in arguing for or against the idea?

How many clubs can afford a marque player? Surely the whole idea of the salary cap was to create a system of equality now the RL are taking a backward step by bringing in a system that will only benefit the richer clubs.Would it be a fair comment to say the richer clubs have in the past disregarded the salary cap and maybe are still doing so and this marque rule will allow them to progress at the expense of the run of the mill clubs. Hardly a level playing field.

Yeah thats a good idea maybe just take some opinions on the whole matter.

The thing is there is absolutely no need for this ruling. Any club can pay a player what they want. Want to pay SBW £500,000 a year? Of course you can. Oh, you'll have to fit the other 24 of your first team into a £1.3 million cap but that is WHAT A SALARY CAP IS FOR.

Honest question. Can anyone name a single top class player that has gone from a top 4 club to a club lower down the table for Cap reasons? I mean a genuine world class International in the prime of their careers.

Leeds won 5 titles and still retained Maguire, Sinfield, Burrow, Hall and have added the likes of Burgess, Hardaker, Moon as well as bringing through youngsters like Watkins, Ward and Sutcliffe.

The cap doesn't work because it doesn't force teams to manage budgets. That means that either a) The cap is too high or b) Players wages are too low.

chase, he went cos Salford could afford him and cas couldnt under the cap.

Cas are hardly a 'top 4 club' !! Salford and Cas in my eyes are about the same - not quite what was being suggested.