That's a failed argument due to the fact that we haven't beaten the Aussies in a series since 1970 and we haven't won a world cup since 1972.
The only answer is to phase out the imports over a period of time forcing British clubs to take junior development seriously.

There's nothing wrong with having a few imports. They increase the quality of the competition. The aim should be a max of 3 per club in my opinion.

Which was the original target of the NFT rule when it was brought in. For some reason and without explanation or announcement that was scrapped and bizarrely a rise from 5 to 7 was implemented.

We're still better than we were several years ago and some clubs are doing better at producing players. We now need the 2 or 3 clubs lagging behind in that department to catch up and the other 5 or 6 clubs who are now doing better to go from simply producing adequate squad players to producing quality players regularly.

But those players are aided by having quality imports alongside them. We can't wall ourselves off. Even the amazing, wonderful NRL needs imports.

What, completely? Way to kill the game! Some restriction on numbers, possibly, yes. But there can't be value in isolating ourselves (and optimistically claiming it's a world sport at the same time?).

And thats a failed argument too.

Imports arnt the reason we can't beat the Ozzies. It's their biggest game in their most populated areas. In the UK, or even just England RL is a minority sport and we need to accept that for now at least. If RL was the major sport in London, Manchester and Birmingham we'd regulary thrash them.

How?

Really? with 30 million extra potential players you dont think we'd have a few better players? plus the extra cash injected into the game from sponsorship etc?

Saint Simon is right. And really, is it just me who fails to suffer too much from the label of "never beating the Aussies".

Does football suffer agonies of insecurity cos we *never* beat the Germans/Brazilians/Spanish etc etc? Yes, of course I'd like to beat the Aussies more often. But, as noted above, the main reasons we don't are clear.

So if it goes through which club is going to bankrupt itself first bringing over a billy slater? My money would be on Wigan. Koukash might have a dig but Salford are going to burst the minute he walks anyway so they are on borrowed time. Pearson is tight so can't see hull going for anyone. Leeds are cash rich so no doubt will go after someone. Moran might splash some cash to get a big name to market. St's will feel the need to keep up with the jones's and could get themselves into financial strife if they try too hard. The other clubs can't afford anyone you'd think.

No way that it would be Wigan... Not under the current stewardship...

The fact the Aussies had to cheat to beat us in their backyard might suggest that the gap isn't as big as people love to make out.

The fact that we were told our best players were sub-NRL then our best players went over and smashed the NRL might suggest the gap isn't as big as people make out.

Who the hell are you? And what could you possibly want.

Immigrants taking our jobs, that's why we haven't won a World Cup.

That would include the French players: Theodore Fages, Kevin Larroyer, John Boudebza, Mickael Simon and William Barthau?

You're correct, but try getting me excited for an international series/tournament featuring the aussies. It ain't happening.

It's generally the Kiwis (and Samoans!) I look forward to seeing.

With the exception of the last WC Final, where unfortunately the Kiwis just didn't turn up, most recent league internationals have been thrilling affairs, from the WC semis to the Four Nations.

Looking forward to the upcoming Tests.

Marquee allowance or not, it might makeno difference if the NRL gets another big increase in TV money. I say just up the cap and leave it to the clubs how they spend it. www.afr.com/business/media-and-m ... 426-1mtdmk

Marquee allowance or not, it might makeno difference if the NRL gets another big increase in TV money. I say just up the cap and leave it to the clubs how they spend it. www.afr.com/business/media-and-m ... 426-1mtdmk

They would give said team a massive fine and points deduction for circumventing the salary cap

Regards

King James

According to league express, 5 clubs are against any idea of a marquee exemption ... And from the sounds of it even the ones who are in favour aren't entirely sure how it should work!

Not looking likely for 2016 at this point ...

Be interesting to see which clubs are against it - I wouldn't be surprised if its some of the less wealthy ones. I also wouldn't be surprised if Leeds are against it, as we have a supposedly rigid cap structure.

I personally don't have a problem with such an allowance. The main issue is that it needs to be spent on genuine quality, not just 'our side's best player'. Tomkins qualifies. Not sure who else currently in SL? Maybe Hall/Watkins?

Roby would, i'd imagine

He probably deserves it, but the allowance is intended to retain/bring in 'star' players. Roby's unlikely to go anywhere without such a pay rise, so it would seem a bit pointless to give him the allowance.

Roby would fit all the definitions of the marquee exemption without fitting any of the purpose of the marquee exemption - Saints putting him as such would be all about Saints freeing up circa 200k on the cap rather than ensuring Roby was paid enough to stay in SL. But I think this is why even the teams who agree there should be an exemption can't agree - how do you define it?

From a saints point of view, Roby would be a marquee placeholder until Jammer is done with the NRL IMO.

Personally think the RFL need to stop "consulting" the clubs - say rule X is coming in in 2017 - you have enough time, sort yourselves out.

Roby is a perfect example of how to use it.
Let's assume he is paid £180k a year.

And assume Sts were at salary cap and wanted to buy say Simon Mannering (name plucked out of thin air) they'd have to let someone go to get him under the salary cap.
But if they agree to pay Roby £20k more, they are free to expand their team and pay Mannering £180k a year

Will 'home grown' mean British or club trained. If it's club trained I doubt too many will have any worth 200k plus a season.