It's nothing to do with discounts, it means clubs like Salford, say, could spend £1m over the cap on just one player.
Current players on high salaries could be tempted to move on. I know it's only a handful, but the richer clubs will benefit.
At the moment, the cap protects clubs, but simply trying to keep their best players will inevitably mean that some clubs will overspend.

I know what your saying, but still think its an over reaction, they will still be a cap, if Salford want to spend 1 million over cap on 1 player, so what! I just cant see it happening, I honestly do not see 1 player, who will still take up 100k or 150k on the cap making a negative impact. Think it will bring some excitement for the fans and super league. If Salford want to pay paul gallen 1m a year to play in super league brilliant, means we get to see him play in our competition, will it make Salford the best team, I don't think so. If Hull announced Sam Burgess as our marquee signing for 2016, would anyone have a problem with that? I'd absolutely love it, and so would the majority of fans, the ticket sales would increase, shirt sales etc! Sam Burgess just me dreaming by the way, im not starting a rumour.

It all seems totally unnecessary, to me, anyway.

Supposing we did sign Sam Burgess, Rovers could then tempt Liam Watts away and there's little we could do about it.
At least at the moment you can offer players what they're worth, within reason, and it's comparable with what other clubs would pay.

Fully agree. The wording's a bit confusing though.

Liam Watts isn't going to be Rovers marquee signing , or any other super league teams, but lets say Leigh decided to make Watts they marquee signing after promotion, how much are they really going to pay him over the 150k? thens it purely down to the player if he wants to go for the money, its a very unrealistic scenario anyway. But I do quite like the thought of say Leigh tempting the Wigan captain with a marquee offer! Assuming Sam Tomkins is Wigans marquee player. I think its exciting and innovative. I can see peoples arguments against it, but Im yet to hear one that as convinced me its not a good idea.

Why is it so unrealistic? At the moment the cap prevents excessive offers. The basic idea of marquee signings will allow clubs to pay over the odds for a player.

So you think Rovers would use they 1 Marquee signing on Watts? Think it would be pretty foolish myself

Dont agree with it at all,the well off clubs will vote for it,and the poor clubs wont. Simples.

It was just an example, believe it or not.

But will it make that much difference to what it is now. The rich clubs having better players than the poorer ones. Just will give the poorer clubs to at least attract one top class player, which in doing so, will make them a better team

I do believe you, that's why I said it was unrealistic

You'll have to explain that one to me.

For example, Wakefield, instead of signing 4 5 average super league players, they sign 3, promote a couple of youth players who are on the fringes. Sign 1 Marquee player, Wakefield fans are excited by signing J Thurston also happy to see the young kids coming through. Actually think it will encourage teams to bring through the youngsters so they can put more money into a marquee signing. Its not a perfect example, but its along the lines of how I think it can benefit even the smaller clubs

Like I said not a perfect example, but you cant just risk losing all our best players to the Nrl or rugby union for the sake of Wakefield, Most teams spend close to the cap, Wakefield probably worst example I could of used to be fair, replace Leigh with wakefield, and I reckon every team would make use of the marquee signing