I've long talked about something along these lines - but it will never happen; the grassroots game is largely ignored by the RFL and SL clubs aren't interested until you have a team who are approaching the age that they can be signed on - then suddenly you spot mysterious men in long, SL club-badged coats, watching your matches and approaching parents in the car park after a game.

The grassroots game is in a dire situation, and without the largesse of parents and local businesses who sponsor kits, it would die a slow death. For mine, SL clubs should be compelled to be actively engaged with grassroots clubs in their catchment area, so that young players can be developed with at least some professional oversight, and the clubs themselves have some support to keep doing what they do without scratching round for resources all the time.

Quote asmadasa="asmadasa"Yet again the divide grows between the cash rich clubs and those struggling ones likeTrinity! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7291354'" The way around that to some degree is to allow Koucash's suggestion of being able to purchase ONE more marquee spot from a club that can't afford it. Say £250k to Wakefield which helps them to buy 3 very good players, making them more competitive, as opposed to 1 marquee player. It also helps to move wealth around the game from those who have it to those who don't. Under the marquee rule there are a potential 12 spots available, that's 12 big news marketable stories that help sell the game and attract new sponsors, fans etc.. We would be stupid to restrict ourselves to just signing 8 because 4 clubs can't afford it.

Quote asmadasa="asmadasa"Yet again the divide grows between the cash rich clubs and those struggling ones likeTrinity! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7291354'" The way around that to some degree is to allow Koucash's suggestion of being able to purchase ONE more marquee spot from a club that can't afford it. Say £250k to Wakefield which helps them to buy 3 very good players, making them more competitive, as opposed to 1 marquee player. It also helps to move wealth around the game from those who have it to those who don't. Under the marquee rule there are a potential 12 spots available, that's 12 big news marketable stories that help sell the game and attract new sponsors, fans etc.. We would be stupid to restrict ourselves to just signing 8 because 4 clubs can't afford it.

You’re absolutely right bren. Until recently we never bothered much with the grassroots clubs in Bradford. Since we got John Bastian in that’s begun to change but there’s a very long way to go. I can’t believe that the club was so blasé about it in the past. I suspect that’s the case at many other clubs too. It’s taken the decline and fall of the team, two admin periods and relegation for us to properly reconnect with local clubs.

Call me an old cynic but, without the new Marquee Player ruling, Wigan would not have been able to afford Tomkins under the old salary cap rule.
They have effectively gambled on the new rule being passed (although one suspects than they must have been certain of it coming in in time for his arrival)
and whilst it will be great to see Tomkins plying his trade in SL, perhaps it shows just how much influence the top few clubs have within the sport.

The Marquee player rule is incidental to clubs like Wakefield as we don't spend the full cap, let alone have 300/400k spare for a "star".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Marquee Player rule is a gimmick/ publicity stunt for the sport.

The sensible option would be to increase the cap and leave clubs to manage their squads accordingly.

Again, although it doesn't affect Wakefield at present, the cap should have at least increased in line with inflation rather than being frozen but, the main part to all this is that we will still end up with Aussie players chasing a big pay day as none of the current internationals or SOO players will come over here and miss out on playing representative rugby.

It's just another chance for the people at Red Hal to self congratulate each other on "a job well done", when the reality is somewhat different.

It could also be the case that 12 very good players could be looking for a club and regular games. Thy will not come cheap but I can see some noses being pushed out. Warrington have already indicated that they have a hit list and they will not be on their own. Happy days.

Salary cap,no salary cap.Marquee players or not,there will always be ways to get round paying players.Money talks and always will.

Imagine the scene in the dressing room at Warrington or Leeds, when the players look over at an ageing Cooper Cronk or Billy Slater, and know full well that he's getting paid 3 times as much as them, because he's been deemed to be 'marquee...'

Meanwhile, I believe that clubs will have to demonstrate affordability before they can use this rule, which will probably exempt Salford if affordability is based on T/O and P&L; I expect Dr K's Twitter feed will make interesting reading if Salford are disallowed from using the rule he's spent months stamping his feet to introduce. Conversely, if it's not based on tangible, real-life affordability measures, then it's just a sugar daddy rule, which is not good for the game - or the clubs involved.

Personally I couldn't disagree more, Warrington and Leeds players can already look across the dressing room at a supposedly better player who's earning much more than they are, it's a fact of being a professional player.

As I've said earlier, some clubs can afford it, sugar daddy or not, and some clubs can't but that also is the way of life. I'd allow the wealthy clubs to purchase one extra marquee spot from a club who can't afford to use it.

If Koucash rang Carter and said I'll buy your marquee place and pay you £250k (the figure Dr K suggested) a year for the next 3 years, I'm sure Mick Carter would snap his hand off.

That would allow a club like Wakefield to buy 3 or 4 very good 1st choice players and make them competitive even without a marquee signing.

The publicity surrounding 12 high profile signings can only be great for the game and fans, sponsors etc would be encouraged to be involved.

Win Win Win IMO

Thats what it is. I believe that if the clubs can't prove they can cover it through the books then a benefactor can lodge a bond with the RFL to cover the cost of the signing.

Whilst that would be a good scenario it isn't one that is happening as they are not allowed to be sold on. So the divide between the haves and have nots will just get bigger.

Its only last week that the good doctor said "I've finished with big time Charlies and I'll spend my money on the academy structure at the club". Seems to change his mind depending on what day it is.

Yet!