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!

Precisely.

I can't see how this is good for the game, or how it does anything to achieve the lofty stated aims; it still won't tempt GI or any other rep player in his pomp from the NRL, it still won't stop top players leaving SL and it still won't force clubs to invest in their youth development. More likely, it will inflate the worth of players like James Roby, who will be designated marquee to give Saints more SC wiggle room; or it will over-value NRL has-beens who are here to bump up their pension pot before hanging up their boots.

There's a multitude of ways the RFL could have been creative with finances for the betterment of the game - this one is just reactionary piffle that will benefit the already wealthy few.

Players and clubs.

Marquee Player Funding Approved yet SL clubs scrap the A teams because they cant fund them its a complete farce all this will do is further restrict youth development and we will see ageing Aussies coming here for one last pay day
All SL clubs should have to fund and run an A team the dual reg system is a farce

Completely agree with the last poster. It is very short sighted and as a result the game will contract rather than expand in this country. The national team will also as a result become even weaker due to home grown talent not being developed and therefore not compete with Australia and New Zealand.

Reserve Grade or 'A' team rugby should be compulsory for SL clubs. If they don't have the finances to support that then they go into Championship.

I'm not wholly against the concept of the marquee player, it is up to the clubs who they waste their money on. It would be better balanced though by giving a 50% discount on the value of home grown players up to a set age in the cap.

the short term signing of players like joey johns was good for the 2-3 games he played for wire.., but no star nrl/origin players are going to come to sl and leave top flight footy behind for a few pounds