Only applies to players from outside the English game, and it's in addition to the existing rule where the top earner is outside the 'cap'
I wonder how they dreamed up the idea ?

The rfl need to get there head out of the sand, and wake up. before it is too late.

I agree, we're getting further left behind every time, RL used to lead the way with thinking up and then implementing ideas like this. Now we just think them up and not bother and implement the daft ones instead

.

Now the Sky deal has more money in it, the RL and SL Clubs should act and get the marquee player rule passed in the next month in my opinion.

The problem with that is that with us having no quota (if we are not over already) spots available we'd only be able to get UK players, and you'd think that SL clubs wouldn't allow there own best British players too leave.

That is unless the marquee player wouldn't count towards the quota cap also.="
Now the Sky deal has more money in it, the RL and SL Clubs should act and get the marquee player rule passed in the next month in my opinion.'"

I think it's important for the whole of SL that at least the marquee exemption is brought in as swiftly as possible to try and keep pace with RU (and the NRL) regardless of our ability at the moment to take advantage of it, I'm sure the Doc would find a way to make it work for us, even if it meant that it was 2016 before we did so. I'd also say that to work properly it would need an exemption from the non-fed rule too.

I also think the salary cap should increase at the same time (puts tin helmet on), it's simply not making good financial sense as a sport to keep it at the same level anymore and the argument that some clubs can't afford to spend up to the cap is not a viable reason to do so. My reasoning is that if you don't attract talent, then you don't attract crowds and you don't attract lucrative sponsorship ergo the net income to the game reduces, clubs can afford less therefore supporting the argument that the salary cap needs to stay the same. Ultimately, it's a self defeating argument and could lead to an ever decreasing revenue stream.

Even if a SC increase would mean that you'd end up paying the same players more money, I still think that would be a short term effect but the long term effect would be that players would find SL a more attractive proposition. Also, to counter the inevitable argument about paying current players more to do the same thing, I'm baffled as to why do some folk think that current players get paid enough already, surely even RL players deserve a pay rise every so often?

Funny how we're all in favour of a rise in the salary cap these days.....

To be honest, I've been in favour of a cap rise for longer than we've been cashed up, as I said in my post earlier, the whole game needs it now to kick start the economics of the sport.

I also said in a post on the VT a couple of months ago the same thing that a salary cap rise wouldn't have made any difference to our plight as the Wilkinson regime fell apart in front of us. The upshot being we couldn't compete anyway under the current cap, so an increase at that time wouldn't have made us poorer but I accept that it could have hastened our demise!

with all the "talent" you have signed, you dont have the crowds.... so how does that thinking work then? how much more do you need to spend to get 10k through the doors?

Seeing as none of the so called big clubs attracted over 8k for a play off game this weekend, perhaps we aren't doing too bad considering our poor season.

Widnes made the top 8 and only averaged 5600, yet this barely gets a mention.

I love the way you've taken one small phrase out of that whole post and then applied it to the situation at Salford so deliberately making mischief and not debating the topic at hand.

My post is talking about the game as a whole not just Salford, it's about the whole package of Super League, the rest of RL and the long term future of the game as a fully professional sport at the top level. It's about competing financially with a rival (but inferior) code that now filches all our best talent because we refuse to level the playing field financially for fear that a club will go bust. If we carry on like we are, it won't be long before fringe SL players will need to go part-time and before you know it, we are no longer a fully professional sport.

if we carry on? its been like this since 1995 with the NRL and RU taking our talent pool. not stopped RL being as awesome as it always has been. other players always step up and fill the void.

as for my original comment; im not sure why youve claimed that. you put that fans will be attracted to talent as will sponsors, yet your team made huuuuge signings with 3 names that most clubs would of been happy to sign just 1 of (Hock, Locke and Chase) let alone the others. yet this hasnt attracted the fans, or the sponsors. so how many superstars does a team require to be able to atract these sponsors and fans?

Bloody hell mate - Chase injured in game 1 and then missing for much of the season, Hock great for the first 3 or 4 games then a tad iffy then decides to take out the ref and banned for the rest of the season and Locke arrived in time for the last half dozen games, plays 1 blinder (Hudds away), misses the next couple injured then plays the last couple of meaningless fixtures while clearly not fit and carrying a few pounds extra.
Yep, that's going to pull the fans in alright!!!!