Cas do well but I suspect they have this as a very deliberate money stream, they've cottoned on if they give promising young lads a contract they can sell them on at a profit. They bleat on about not being able to keep of them but I wouldn't be surprised if they are touting out all these players that leave behind closed doors.

No doubt they need the money, but are bigger clubs like Wigan doing the same? The amount of players sold from Wigan in the last 5 yrs is staggering

I guess the only difference is that the salary cap dictates our behaviour (we could compete for wages without it) whereas that's not necessarily the same for other selling clubs. We cash in because we can't keep people beyond their contract even though we have the means and the desire to; they cash in because they wouldn't have the means.

But good point.

I doubt they're touting them out though. I'm sure if Hock had a better attitude and the NRL didn't cherry pick the bones out of them offering them terms Wigan aren't allowed to match, they'd probably still be there.
It must grate knowing they have the financial power to stop it but hands are tied because Wakefield and Bradford are mismanaged.

The other part of that, is if as a club you are producing a lot of very good youngsters (Wigan five academy titles in six years) then you have to let players move on to make room for them. I accept that there is a bit of risk in that strategy but it seems to be working at the moment.

The BIG risk is that you have too many young players in the team at once.

The test of that will be next season. The homegrown rule means you can compete on wages, but does your management have the desire to? If Micky mc and Charnley go you may have an answer

Charnley could be replaced from within (Manfredi, very similar in style) Replacing Mick Mac would be a problem, and maybe we would have to buy in, but the money is available for that (Daryl Clark?). There is a very good young hooker, Luke Waterworth, coming through the systems but I think he is three or four years away from being a regular first team forward.

Do you think they're both going? Does IL not even try to keep these players?

I'm not so sure Charnley would make it at NRL level. I haven't been impressed with him against the Aussies or the kiwis when he's played. He juSt doesn't seem the same player at that level.

I'm not bagging Charnley before you all come flooding in with counter posts of how Josh is better than makinson and swift. I know he's better than both at the moment.

I like charnley, he's a very good super league player and his try record is freakish. I also like him as he plays with a smile on his face but like I said, I don't think he will be great in the NRL.

I haven't heard anything at all. What he won't do, quite rightly, is to be held to ransom.

I agree, but they are two of your star players, it's a bit silly to vote for a marquee rule but then not pay your own locally trained players enough to keep them, surely?

Charnley's defence can be suspect at times. With Goulding as his centre he's ok but should someone else play 3 then he can be in trouble.
Likewise playing for England, if Goulding was his centre he'd be ok but with Kallum Watkins at 3 then anything can happen to their defence and often does.
Watkins ball in hand is the best 3 in our game by some distance but defence wise he's all over the place.
Wouldn't surprise any of us if Charnley and Micky Mac end up in the NRL.
If they do we really need to buy in experienced players. Especially at 9.

Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the homegrown rule only applied to one homegrown player? If so it can hardly be thought to help us that much when a large amount of our best players are home grown. If it applies to them all then I completely agree, at the moment I'm still of the impression that we've got the desire I'm talking of - but as you point out it hasn't been tested properly.

The reasons clubs go bust is they are badly managed.

Bradford have gone bust with a low salary cap and without a marquee signing stuffing them up.

Badly run clubs go bust regardless of what you do and don't allow them to do. Not having a marquee rule because the likes of Bradford are poorly run is daft and yet again penalises the well run clubs for the failings of the badly run clubs.



I do not agree with that. The idea a marquee signing would stop clubs developing youth does not follow. What will stop them is things like the proposal to increase the overseas quota. It is obvious that is to allow clubs to bolster the ranks because there aren't enough players to go around and it will be with average to poor NRL players.

There is another thing that is going to curtail youth development. The return to promotion and relegation. This happened last time. Clubs buying in players to avoid the drop. And I don't mean a the end of the season where a signing ban would prevent this but having it as a policy form the outset that promoting youth is too risky so they just do not bother.

But how can you vote for "marquee" rule yet keep losing so many players to the NRL like mossop, Tomkins, the prop I can't think of his name who went last year. Plus you lost Joel tomkins and Thornley to union.

If you can't keep home grown players how the hell can you justify splashing out on "marquee" ?

Koucash obviously has his own agenda but this will allow more money to be brought into the game! Can't you see that?

Marquee and homegrown aren't mutually exclusive.

Spending hundreds of thousands on one player will bring in extra money?

I'm interested to hear this? (Please don't say extra fans)

I'd have thought, keep your own players first before going breaking the bank on one player. Why not use the "marquee" money on keeping the likes of tomkin brothers and mossop?

I dont think theres a rule about it having to be just for one player. i might be wrong of course

I hate when people try and make out this doesn't happen.

This past month alone i have watched a couple of bath games, a couple of saracens games, a couple of NSW waratahs, a couple of auckland blue games and not to mention all the England 6 nation matches.

I don't particularly like union but i am watching it more and more to see how Kyle Eastmond, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Owen Farrell, Israel Falou and benji Marshall are getting on. So to say bringing big names into the game or bringing union players won't bring extra fans is silly even if its just one, but it will happen.

If the Marquee allowances is brought in and the standard of super league rises (the main aim isn't it?) these players should be less inclined to go and test the selves in the NRL. Funny how fans back the argument of there own chairmen, If somebody asked you this a couple of months ago or even said you can sign Jamie Lyon and it won't cost you anything on the cap you would be all for it.

I love Widnes approach and i respect them a lot more for it. Basically they admit they wouldn't be able to use the extra allowance but they voted for it because its not all about whats best for their situation but for the league.

It's funny how only the minority voted for it then. In a time that clubs are on the verge of going bust, certain other "rich" clubs are voting for a rope for other trash to hang themselves.

The Dr is a idiot and has spouted utter crap since the day he bought Salford.

The marquee might be a good idea but not in this current climate.

Edit - clubs voted to scrap the u21s in order to save a measly 30k but then certain clubs vote in favour to spend hundreds of thousands on one player. Doesn't really make sense.

But if you don't have the money, then don't spend it. If you have then you should be able too.
What if there was rule that you could only spend it on a marquee player if you made a profit, would that be o.k?

I'm just not for it at this current climate. The are other ways to make the comp better and prevent players leaving.

Doubt the Doc would like it!

If its done so the Marquee player is payed for seperately from the club, i.e. by the chairman directly, or by some rich sponsor, then theres no risk to clubs at all