Just looking to see what kind of proportion are in favor of the new ruling.

Is there a "meh, it's just fiddling around the edges to keep certain media-friendly club chairmen happy" option?

I always fear of putting a "meh" option in, would prob account for 99% of opinion is some cases lol.

Dumb rule that will only help out 2 or 3 teams realistically. Not to mention it's pretty much odds on teams will just blow a load of money on an ageing overseas player.

A better rule would have been a teams academy products have a vastly reduced cap cost (talking like ~50%), something that would benefit a lot more teams at every level.

It's impact will likely be modest. It's the PRECEDENT which concerns me.

Slippery slope reasoning often tends to be bad reasoning. But given that we are talking about the mad and crazy world of Rugby League I think there's a strong possibility we'll be discussing "Marquee Rule additions" in eighteen months. From then on it's a race to chip away all the good work we've done since the bad, bad old days of the eighties.

We're going to end up back at the "Club England" (or as it more accurately was, Club A5icon_cool.gif rule again aren't we?

Voted strongly against but i'm not really 'strongly' against it to be honest. I just think SL clubs should be focused on getting the U21's and reserve side of things sorted before voting to be allowed to blow more cash on one 'big' player.

Although I imagine the ones who will make most use of it are the ones who already have decent youth set ups anyway... plus Salford.

It may provide a boost if we can attract some big names into British RL BUT, with the disparity in spend between League in this country, compared to Aus or indeed Union, realistically, it's nothing more than a gimmick so we may as well just increase the "cap".
It will allow English clubs to pay one of their players more than they do now but, it wont protect them form "outsiders".

Can we have another poll on when Marwan or Eric Pollard will ask for more? They will quickly want a second marquee to prevent a superstar young player being picked off by Union.

Would rather see the basic cap level raised and then linked to inflation.
What is the need to limit the additional spending to just one player? If a clubs wants to spread the extra payment across 5 players let them.

i have some reservations, is the rule to allow clubs to retain their homegrown star players to prevent them going to the NRL or to allow clubs to bring in an overseas big name? if its the latter i have concerns that we won't actually get the really big names, more rather than we will be saddled with some middling nrl players whose status gets pushed up by clever player agents. the game needs to be careful we don't just end up overpaying average players

This, the 'dispensation' that London had (£100k was it?) to allow for increase in living in that area was ridiculously out, if you can't at least have an inflation rise then you're effectively pushing wages down all the time and all the repercussions from that which we've already seen to a certain extent.

The winners of all this will be some players agents.

I would rather money be set aside to set up decent reserve grade (or a team) league.