Marquee and homegrown aren't mutually exclusive.

Spending hundreds of thousands on one player will bring in extra money?

I'm interested to hear this? (Please don't say extra fans)

I'd have thought, keep your own players first before going breaking the bank on one player. Why not use the "marquee" money on keeping the likes of tomkin brothers and mossop?

I dont think theres a rule about it having to be just for one player. i might be wrong of course

I hate when people try and make out this doesn't happen.

This past month alone i have watched a couple of bath games, a couple of saracens games, a couple of NSW waratahs, a couple of auckland blue games and not to mention all the England 6 nation matches.

I don't particularly like union but i am watching it more and more to see how Kyle Eastmond, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Owen Farrell, Israel Falou and benji Marshall are getting on. So to say bringing big names into the game or bringing union players won't bring extra fans is silly even if its just one, but it will happen.

If the Marquee allowances is brought in and the standard of super league rises (the main aim isn't it?) these players should be less inclined to go and test the selves in the NRL. Funny how fans back the argument of there own chairmen, If somebody asked you this a couple of months ago or even said you can sign Jamie Lyon and it won't cost you anything on the cap you would be all for it.

I love Widnes approach and i respect them a lot more for it. Basically they admit they wouldn't be able to use the extra allowance but they voted for it because its not all about whats best for their situation but for the league.

It's funny how only the minority voted for it then. In a time that clubs are on the verge of going bust, certain other "rich" clubs are voting for a rope for other trash to hang themselves.

The Dr is a idiot and has spouted utter crap since the day he bought Salford.

The marquee might be a good idea but not in this current climate.

Edit - clubs voted to scrap the u21s in order to save a measly 30k but then certain clubs vote in favour to spend hundreds of thousands on one player. Doesn't really make sense.

But if you don't have the money, then don't spend it. If you have then you should be able too.
What if there was rule that you could only spend it on a marquee player if you made a profit, would that be o.k?

I'm just not for it at this current climate. The are other ways to make the comp better and prevent players leaving.

Doubt the Doc would like it!

If its done so the Marquee player is payed for seperately from the club, i.e. by the chairman directly, or by some rich sponsor, then theres no risk to clubs at all

The only thing this fool wants is to have everything his way.

under 21s doesn't bring fans or interest from further a field having a couple of the best player in the world playing in the super league would. And yes those clubs have voted for self interest. Bradford are the only club going bust wouldn't it be nice for them to be able to sell off the marquee player allowance? Who voted for Bradford considering they don't have a chairmen?

What does your opinions of Koukash have to do with this? Fans have been asking for this allowance long before he got involved in the game the only difference is now he is some one who has more reach than anybody on this board.