I think that says enough for me......
I'll leave you and your Saints buddy to it, enjoy.

Well let me expand then.

You asked is paying 200k a way of getting money into the game.

I suggested that, as a result of selling their opportunity to sign a "marquee" it could cost clubs through fans ticket sales, sponsorship and merchandise (because we keep hearing about how much money a marquee brings to a club) - if the sum total of that is 201k then no, it's not bringing money into the game.

That's a ludicrous analogy! I'd go so far as to say the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying something. It would take 3 pages just to touch on what's wrong with that statement!

Koukash says he'll pay 200k for someone else's ticket, the thing is I'm sure that is just a number he flippantly spouted off, he could pay 300k or 800k, possibly a million.

If a team Auctions it off and say Wigan, Leeds, Salford and Wire have earmarked a player, it could be a big figure going to a club in need, I'd imagine Bradford wouldn't mind a one million cash injection right now.

Golden ticket is a joke for me that is not what i want to see in the game. I am in favour of allowing any SL side 1 player off the cap. That's it for me no Golden Ticket no handouts to other clubs. You get 1 as well as the new exemption rule re youngsters coming through.

If i have misled you i am sorry but i am opposed to any rule which sees an owner buy the ticket from another club. 1 Marquee player per club off the cap. Straight simple no messing around. And as stated the money goes to the RFL who pays the player the wage. That is to ensure the money is available and not monopoly money and ensures that the clubs can afford to pay the other players without going into trouble.

I don't understand why these things are decided by clubs voting. The RFL should be making these decisions for the good of the game rather than individual clubs voting in their own interests. London, Wakefield, Castleford and Bradford will always vote for the status quo because if the game progresses they won't progress with it, they'll be left behind.

This golden ticket does seem odd on the face of it, but if a wealthy chairman of one club is giving monies, lets take the 200K figure, to a club in need, how can that be a bad thing?... Unless, of course, your club is happy to bounce along the bottom moaning about it...... We don't live in a communist utopia, some clubs will always be bigger than other, some clubs will always be wealthier than others... but if we just accept the lowest common denominator as the norm, we may as well pack in now under the onslaught we will see over the next couple of years from Union, and the NRL.

Problem is that all it would do is let Salford get a foothold on top 4 without the infrastructure in developing a youth system. The would buy 2-4 tickets and in `1 go become a top 4 side. Even the NRL has only 1 marquee player per club if i am correct.

200k for a badly run club will do very little for the game. All that will do is paper over the cracks a poor run club will always be poorly run. And as we know a fool and his money is soon parted. I just hope that sides can get 1 per side and get as many youth developed players off the cap after the first 100k. That system to us is a golden ticket as from what i saw today, Hampshire, Manfredi, Thornley, and Burgess would be good enough now for most Super League sides and we seriously need to keep them all if possible.

But we don't live in a capitalist utopia either. For the golden ticket to work, all clubs (or at least a vast majority) need to be comfortably spending less than they could. As has been said, we currently only have 6 teams financially capable of bidding on tickets - and just because they can doesn't mean they will - both Wigan and saints would fall into the can but won't category (given how you handle club trained players leaving) - Leeds are always complaining about the board being tight fisted with money, which leaves Huddersfield, Salford and Warrington who would be capable of bidding on tickets - I don't know enough about huddersfields finances, and whilst Warrington are profit making I can't see Moran wanting to disrupt that too much - which would leave koukash bidding (which would return us to a situation of Wigan in the 80s) - nobody can think that's a good thing?

Further what happens if a club becomes reliant on the money coming in from selling golden tickets? Surely that's just papering over the cracks? What would be better is to have all clubs capable of surviving on it's own income, without needing a bit on the side from koukash to let him do what he wants?

One per side would be perfect, and the ideal... But clubs don't seem to be prepared, or able to get a shift on... For those clubs thinking "Oh just listen to the likes of Wigan, whining cause they are losing players to the NRL or Union", it affects them too, cause will will take your talent!!!! Some sort of exemption will help them to keep their top talent too... I doubt ANYBODY sees this as a panacea for all ill's, but we cannot just roll over and lose talent from our game...

I'm done, cause i know some would argue blacks white if they want to...

This is the crux of the problem. The two sides appear to be the Natural Selection proponents who will let teams die for the benefit of clubs controlling their own destiny; and the Holistic types who recognise the massive wastage that natural selection allows and try to tend towards similar ends through coercion and management instead. Arguably just the base political spectrum tbh, so no surprises there.

I do wonder if a strategy of handing out ropes and letting clubs either thrive or indeed hang themselves could work if we do enough to mitigate the inefficiencies of failure. I wonder if the RFL committed to openly preying upon faltering clubs; buying up facilities, club shares etc with a view to increasing centralisation, whether such a strategy could have long term benefits. Obviously there's a massive cost-benefit calculation to be done with respect to the benefits of centralisation, but the thought may be worth entertaining.

And from next year they do have some sort of exemption - the home grown cap rule helps protect (shockingly) home grown players from being poached - it's not ideal but it's a start!