Aye, looking back attendances were good for Hull FC in 2010, as you say. It's always difficult to dissect out the causes with much confidence, but I do take your point.

Clubs voted against Kouchash and others today .
No exemption for one player .

Salford, Wigan, Warrington, Widnes and surprisingly Leeds voted for it.

I presume the rest didn't vote or voted against?!

Funny Leeds did yet Wakie didn't (Heatherington connection)

There will be trouble at bedtime

Excellent news.

Stupid idea that would have done way more harm than good.

Bradford chose not to attend the meeting.

Why? If richer chairman want to fund it and even buy other clubs marque "rights" off them the it's win/win all round isn't it?

Certainly in theory. I can't see the amounts offered being huge, to the point that the negative connotation of selling might do more harm than good.

Tbh, it suits certain clubs, but not others. At the moment the latter group is bigger. But the 'dog' is likely to grow relative to the 'tail', with 2 clubs relegated.
I'd rather they just raised the cap, rather than add ever more complexity to the system.

Then surely the clubs selling their marquee rights to a bigger club, the gap between the best and lesser clubs will be even bigger?!

To be fair they spent so long deciding who should go for whichever company they are now, that the meeting had finished

Because it isn't already?

We currently have 14 clubs with 25 players counting on the cap (350). That's dropping to 12 clubs (300), if you then said the marquee player had to be one of the 25, meaning 24 players would share the cap, then you'd have 62 of the leagues poorest players been made available to championship clubs and the quality of all 12 sl clubs getting higher.

The gap between top and bottom can't be any worse than now, have you seen London?

It also gives us the star players crowds want to see and gives a distribution of wealth to the poor clubs. I'd put one rule on it though and reduce overseas player who are not marquee.

So if London, Wakefield, Bradford and castleford all decide to 'cash in' and give there marquee rights to another club. Seeing all these big clubs get even stronger. Yeah it'll be great for the big clubs and will attact more fans but won't it have the opposite effect on the small clubs? Getting beat by even bigger scores more often? It'll likely push fans away.

Don't get me wrong I'm not for or against it. As I haven't totally made my mind up yet. Yeah it'd be great for Hull to sign a big name player. But for the league as a whole I think it'd be a bad idea.

Also say if Castleford give there marquee player rights to say Hull. What happens if the season after they decide they want to sign a marquee player? I don't know if this has already been mentioned. I haven't read anything about the ongoings.

I think this strikes at the deeper point. Which is that we have clubs of quite different sizes competing in the same league and unbalanced RL is a poor spectacle. More so than similarly unbalanced football, for example (IMO) - they've had to rely on uneven central distributions and the Champions league to a large extent to create so many dully predictable and one-sided fixtures in their top division in this country.

We don't have enough big clubs to make up a league of a sensible size. The concept of mergers is deeply unpopular, which'd make them self-defeating most likely. So inevitably we have clubs pulling in different directions on stuff like this.
Some annoyed that they're being artificially constrained, the rest fearful of their sporting and economic viability being undermined.

I guess a club would have to buy a golden ticket for the duration of a player's contract.

I've heard worse ideas, but when you add in the homegrown dispensations that are coming and the allowances for having/producing England/Knights players (if that rule is staying?), then it just seems simpler to raise the cap and accept that only a small handful of the biggest or best backed clubs will be able to spend the maximum.

There's no real right and wrong to it. Just self-interest. Can you imagine poverty-era Salford fans being so in favour? If there were any in truth in the rumour about squidillions of rubles being pumped into Rovers, it'd seem much more attractive to me, I'm sure.

What would attract more fans is been able to see big name players every week, watching SBW, Folau, Sam Burgess or some other "superstar" the games losing/lost/can steal from RU would be a crowd puller.

Crowds are getting pushed away, in fact the biggest rise is Salfords who have brought in big name players (I know its only one home game and I don't want to attract Willam Eve to this thread).



As both Hull and Hkr voted against it i'd guess neither are in the position to sign these players, were we would be able to profit is selling our "ticket" and investing it in good quality youth programs.



Not a clue mate.

Could Pearson sell your 'ticket' without being accused of 'lacking ambition' and perhaps [idamaging[/i income? Would he be concerned that even if he did make a modest investment in a medium sized 'name', fans would still ask why he wasn't going blow for blow with Leeds, Wigan, Wire or Salford? Especially if they had 2 or 3 tickets each.

Even with Rovers having cultivated an image of skint underdog (not to suggest it isn't an accurate self-portrayal), it'd be a tad disheartening.