Patronising or what?

If you can't see that this is far more than just Salford "chasing the top" then you're just being wilfully blind - but hey ho, let's just retreat to our M62 corridor, let's forget about trying to raise the profile of the whole sport and let's just rely on Barwick & Big Nigel because haven't they done well so far?

Disappointed about the marquee player bit in all this, but not disappointed about the golden ticket.
One club giving money to another for anything other than buying a player seem so wrong.

Then educate, are you going to tell me about how it expands the game in the uk? How does Salford signing a 30 something ex Aussie help crowds at London? Because everyone in London will flock to see him? - I don't buy that.

Or are you going to tell me my club lacks ambition like Salford?

There are big problems with the game at the moment, but bringing over some second rate Aussies who are either past their prime or never going to quite make it to the very top doesn't solve them.

And no more patronising that koukash offering to buy from other clubs his "right" to fill his squad with "marquee" signings.

No not just HIS right, any club's right! As was pointed out earlier in this thread "Other clubs & chairmen are available"

I absolutely agree bringing over Aussie has-beens is not the way forward (and believe me I've seen more than my fair share at Salford over the last few years!) - if we want to attract the best then we (that's ALL clubs not just Salford) have to be able to offer the best Ts & Cs - the marquee idea allows that to happen.

It would be interesting to find out just how the voting went this afternoon.

But by voting against it the other chairmen have spurned that right! Only he would really benefit from it, as as discussed the majority of clubs in the financial position to take advantage wouldn't for one reason or another! In the worst case, the clubs who weren't in a financial position would use the ruling - imagine if Bradford also had a 350k a year contract strung to them whilst going through what they are!

There are ways and means to fit it into the salary cap, as has been proven through the years, 10 years ago saints had a plan to sign sonny bill under the salary cap! - it can happen, it just needs skill to pull it off.

I'm never gonna agree with marquee exemption as I just see it as lazy, your probably never gonna disagree with it as you see it as bait for the top - let's agree to disagree!

I'd be interested to see the voting split, but also the specific terms the marquee ruling would have - from the wording of which player counts as "marquee" (whether a club gets to nominate or if it's the highest earner at the club, or it's it's the highest cap value player at the club - which could be 3 different people!) - and whether the signing would still have to fall into the strict 50% of liabilities rule.

Salford, Wigan, Warrington, Widnes and Leeds voted in favour.

Which way did Bradford vote?

I presumed the ones named above were the ones who voted in favour and the rest either voted against or abstained.

Koukash has just thanked Wigan Warrington Wdnes & leeds for there support

That's interesting. I knew Widnes were in favour of it, but I thought Saints broadly supported it too. I wonder if the specifics of the proposal didn't suit some.

A maximum of 3 could of abstained, I don't even know who Bradford could of sent to vote for them, they have no chairman, so I imagine they're one of them!

Jesus christ, how negative are you?

Cant you appreciate the positivity that a marquee exemption would bring to the sport. Your inital point (whereby you stated only one man would gain from this) was quickly proved to be noncense, with the likes of Warrington and Leeds supporting the idea. Granted only Salford, Warrington, Leeds and Huddersfield have owners with the personal wealth to fund such a player, but what is stopping the likes of St Helens, London, Castleford, Wakefield etc getting off their ar*es and sourcing additional revenue through sponsorships etc to cover the cost of a marquee superstar? Or is that too much trouble and it's just easier if we keep things as they are. If we were able to bring the likes of Cameron Smith, Billy Slater, SBW, Greg Inglis etc over to Super League it would only benefit clubs through extra merchandise sales, attendances would increase and so would the quality of Super League in general.

Instead you choose to use an example of an awfully run club in Bradford for again scourning the idea.

Saints, or rather McManus, is much more eager for the "sustainable growth" model - and wants clubs to receive more from central funding then they spend on the cap.

Also, we basically got our "marquee exemption" with the home grown rule coming in. We're unlikely to sign better than Roby, and he will only count for 100k for the next 5 years freeing up a lot of space on our cap (with lomax potentially as well) - if you believe player contract value rumours of course.

Quote ="John Gilbert Reds"If we were able to bring the likes of Cameron Smith, Billy Slater, SBW, Greg Inglis etc over to Super League it would only benefit clubs through extra merchandise sales, attendances would increase and so would the quality of Super League in general. '" Your missing my point. We wouldn't sign them. Even during the height of the strong pound era we couldn't get Tallis, or fittler or johns (minus 3 games when it suited him) In fact read this - www.theage.com.au/news/League/St ... 92413.html There's more than just throwing money to this.

Quote ="John Gilbert Reds"If we were able to bring the likes of Cameron Smith, Billy Slater, SBW, Greg Inglis etc over to Super League it would only benefit clubs through extra merchandise sales, attendances would increase and so would the quality of Super League in general. '" Your missing my point. We wouldn't sign them. Even during the height of the strong pound era we couldn't get Tallis, or fittler or johns (minus 3 games when it suited him) In fact read this - www.theage.com.au/news/League/St ... 92413.html There's more than just throwing money to this.

Off hand I can think of two sports that have a marquee player rule rugby union and that sport seems to be growing at our expense and Major League Soccer/football, they call it the Beckham rule and look at the progress they are making.
The only other sport I can think of that had a system of attracting higher quality players was Ice Hockey they scrapped it because some clubs couldn't fund it and now the League in this country has become a shop window for the better players moving to Europe. So as a sport we now have to ask do we compete or do we become a minority sport that will become a feeder sport and very soon be totally ignored by main stream media.

Think RHP represented us. Disappointed this didn't go through. We need to do something to stop the player drain. The continuing growth line is about tiresome as te "salary cap should remain the same to even the competition" line.
Was nice to see LEAGUE been linked with a top union player this morning (Manu tuilagi) wonder if we wil see the light when Tomkins joins Eastmknd, Butgess and Ashton in the England RUnsquad

So because St Helens couldnt convince a 19-year-old to come over nearly 10 years ago, no other Super League club would be successful? I dont buy that theory.

After the success of the RLWC and the big name players which appeared to enjoy it, now would be the perfect time to tempt the likes of Cameron Smith and Billy Slater who both have contracts coming to end over to Super League.

I notice Koukash has said only 5 clubs voted in favour, I have no doubts he'll secure the required 3 more in no time.

will the 2 of those who voted against/abstained even be relevent next year. with the cut to 12 he actually only needs to convince two more to join.

Good point, I didnt even think of that. Apparantly Salford, Widnes, Wigan, Warrington and Leeds were the clubs who voted in favour which I am a little shocked about. I expected at least one Hull club and Huddersfield to have been interested.

Name one in form, not disgraced, career peak (or still ahead of him), genuine Aussie superstar (not the second tier superstar, but the genuine, certain for country type) that super league has ever signed? - and do you believe the number of players on that list if from lack of trying?

The rlwc was great, no doubt - but signing an over the hill Aussie is the exact opposite to the point of that isn't it? I would rather see Sam tomkins back than billy slater! How many "superstar" Aussies have we seen come over at the end of their career for a holiday? Josh perry was the last one and was dire! It doesn't raise the profile any.

Cameron smith, would be a great deal if someone in super league got him but a) Leeds got buderus, whilst with a salary cap, and b) he will end up at either broncos or storm, no amount of money in the world will change that - literally a £1m a year wouldn't change that, because as many take joy in pointing out, we don't have the profile to do that.

We first need to keep hold of our own, then we need to get back the ones we lost, then we can chase the luxuries of smith and sbw of this world. As I've said - marquee signing that's eligible for England, I'm more than fine with. Home grown rule will help keep our future superstars. Start from there, and then build outwards.

Also a $900,000 deal would still make him the highest paid player in the sport - you have to ask why he rejected it all those years ago.

Edit: it will come in some form eventually I imagine, but what the specific terms of it are, is still yet to be known.

The examples of Cameron Smith and Billy Slater were used purely because they're IMO the most available Australian NRL superstars at the moment due to their contracts. However you've also got James Graham who I believe comes to the end of his current deal at the end of the year, at the moment which clubs could realistically bring him back? Probably non, because of the restrictions on the cap. Do we risk losing him for another 2/3 years to the NRL or even worse RU? We'll be in the same position when Sam Tomkins contract is close to running down, or Sam Burgess' unless we make the required changes now.

I agree with the homegrown rule, but that is a seperate issue entirely from the marquee allowance. Plus more money for either Burgess, Tomkins or Graham wouldnt have prevented them from leaving the Super League for the NRL. Whilst a pay increase must have been attractive, the prospect of playing in the NRL is far greater due to the standard of the competition, the publicty it receives and so on. We need to raise the profile of the game over here, raise the standards and take it to the next level because we've been stagnating for far too long now.

seems an odd argument in favour of not having a marquee allowance that whilst we havent had a marquee allowance we havent signed any of the very top players, but have signed some of the 2nd tier players.

I think £1m a year would change most players minds, Sonny Bill moved to France to take up a different sport for not a huge amount more.

Saints could match any offer for Graham with the home grown rule, but can we afford it? Probably, but i doubt our chairman would go for it as he probably doesnt think any player is worth over £400k a year

And the race to the bottom continues, I can't believe so many call the RFL and Big Nige when their own clubs are run by clowns.

Irony not your strong point is it.