It would depend how he sold the selling to the media I suppose. If he span it that he's more happy to invest the money in the future while Salford "had" to sign player x because their academy was lacking he might get away with it from the headline readers.

Tbh every reason i'm reading to not do it, the main idea not the fine print of it all, makes me think doing it is the only way to go. I'd rather Hull FC played in a competition that had some of the finest players in the world than dominated some poor standard league full of bang average players that sold every star as soon as they appeared.

It is a fair point, and there's a part of me that'd be curious to see who we (Super League) could attract.

It is an interesting choice. But it could be reframed - to not dominate is one thing, and not such a sacrifice. Taking it to the other extreme, to be heavily outgunned and not even really competitive in maybe half your fixtures, is a bit scarier. Tbf, it is the reality for one or two teams even now.

I'm pretty much neutral on it. Overall, my feeling is that the cap should be raised rather than loosened by numerous adjustments.
If they do ever go with tickets, the RFL should IMO hold them and demand a flat fee (maybe rising for a second, third, etc) and put the cash into the grassroots game. Imagine if Leeds got Widnes' and Wakefield's for £20k each and you had to give Cas £100k for theirs, or something like that!

Yeah, the trick you mention with Billy Slater hadn't occurred to me. That'd be a loophole to keep an eye on.

A million quid is a great deal of money by SL standards. Firstly it makes me wonder if we'd get the biggest names in their prime. US soccer has this rule and they still can't sign a Messi (maybe when he's 38 they might). Also would it be a good idea for one guy taking the field to maybe be earning as much as rest combined? How much would he add to the gate (rather than just enthusing those already there)? I know there might be other commercial advantages, sponsorship, maybe more television revenue for all. But to recover even half a million you'd need more than 2000 extra on the gate.

That said, the talent drain does need to be weighed against competitive balance, I admit.

Frank Machin's famous quote:

We don't have stars in this game, Mrs Weaver. That's soccer.

Still true and part of the sports identity, or backward looking and outdated? Bit of both, I guess.

As I said on the other thread a marquee player per club would be good in my opinion. Fans want to see the best players playing in the comp and always have done. They don't want to see players being brought through junior ranks and emerging as top talent only for them to be picked off by Australia or Union.

What wouldn't be good is a market for marquee player slots, or "tickets". That just favours the sugar daddy teams.

One player per club off the cap up to a maximum contract level. That would enhance the competition. If the best talent keeps leaving the game so will the fans.

It seems like a brilliant idea to me, apart from the golden ticket nonsense. One marquee player per club (if they want one/can afford one), a realistic limit to what you can pay him and no selling-on of the rights/ticket.

We have to do something to retain and attract the best players in the world, wherever they're from. If it means that the "bigger clubs" get a little bigger but SL, as a whole, is more attractive to us all, then so be it.

Will they though? While there's certainly an issue with fans in some parts of the World staying at home to watch Manchester United or Chelsea, people still go to football in France and Portugal in good numbers. You don't have to be top of the pecking order to offer an attractive and entertaining game. When I watch Rovers in a close game against Widnes or Cas or Hull, there's no big part of me thinking 'this is next to State of Origin', or wishing we were losing heavily against quality opposition like Brisbane or Souths. Or 84-6 against Wigan.

Quality is important, but not as much as excitement. IMO.

You had me right up to the underlined but, then I knew you were bulls**ing!

Not sure what 'State Of Origin' or football in France has to do with anything. My point was that over the years British RL fans have enjoyed watching big name stars play for their clubs against other big name stars playing for other clubs. Typically in the 80s for Hull and Hull KR specifically. More recently when Warrington got Johns over to play a few games it created excitement and interest in the game. People even paid to watch Willie Mason train These days not only are those players not coming because of SL's inability to compete in the wage arena, but we are now losing home grown 'exciting' players to other competitions inside and outside of the game that we have invested heavily in developing through our own youth structures. It's a lose/lose situation in my opinion as things stand and if it continues over time it will have an affect on the number of people watching the game and crucially the game's attractiveness to media and sponsors.

An optional single marquee player per club (not necessarily of the overseas variety) would create interest and buzz in the competition and be another marketing angle for the clubs and RFL to exploit in an increasingly competitive for fans' and sponsors' cash. Excitement is very important - and would be enhanced with such a system. IMO.

The very maximum that we could based upon what could be afforded by the club aggregated with external sponsorship money tied specifically to the deal. I have no idea what that sum would amount to or indeed what 'level' of player it might attract. If it meant that a home grown 'superstar' youngster stayed at Hull instead of leaving for more money elsewhere that would be good though. It would be great to have the option to explore instead of being completely restrained.

Only if your plan is to shrink SL to 5 teams.

When have teams like Cas and Wakey ever looked like they could compete for the league?

If teams can't afford a marquee player they auction off their ticket to the highest bidder, it's money for nothing, if they're concerned about other clubs pulling away don't sell off your ticket, at the end of the day though it's only one player who will be injured/rested sometimes, I don't understand the fear?

then you will get one club, likely to be salford who will bid for all the unwanted tickets! they could be £500,000 over the cap if they did that! hardly a level playing field

its a farcical idea!

each club can have one marquee player if they choose, not on the cap and no golden ticket, if a club decide not to sign on a player then why should another club benefit more by that decision?

Wakefield have won it more recently than Warrington.

Mind you, so have Oldham, Swinton, Dewsbury and Featherstone.

IMO, a team should get a golden ticket for every league title they've won since the introduction of the limited tackle rule. To a maximum of three, so as not to unbalance the competition. This should entitle clubs to sign players outside of the cap, paid for out of Nigel Woods' lunch money. This will encourage underperforming clubs whose teams haven't won the title since Winston Churchill resigned as Prime Minister to up their game.