If the clubs would concentrate on properly developing the talent available in this country, instead of constantly wanting to go for short term fixes, there would be no need for marquee players. At the end of the day, marquee players, which presumably means some big name NRL player, would be mercenaries. They wouldn't be buying into anybody's ideals or philosophies, they would be here for the big buck.

For years, most clubs have only paid lip service to player development and the result is, with so many players from elsewhere playing in the English game, The national side has gone backwards. When the RFL bites the bullet and restricts the number of overseas players while effectively promoting development, Super League will improve and so too will the prospects of the national side.

Apart from which, in view of the Aussie selection criteria, does anybody genuinely believe that an Aussie international will migrate to Super League if he makes himself ineligible for selection for his national side? Unless, of course, it's for super money. And when the pay cheque is guaranteed, without the prospect of Origin, or green and gold, what will be their motivation?

The opportunity to improve the standard of the game in this country has been passed by so many times by people who can only think short term. The franchise system was an ideal opportunity to foster and develop home grown talent without the fear of relegation. Few, if any, took advantage of this because they craved a chance of short term success. Most failed to achieve that success or the longer term benefit of having developed their own "marquee players".

Rugby League, at every level, from the RFL directors to the fans, needs to sit back and take a good look at the last twenty years and consider what it could have been if it had really tried.

I think the easiest answer is that a marquee player is what each Club deems it to be. It could be an International, or a homegrown star, or simply a high wage earner. Let's take Clarke at Cas. If there was a marquee player in effect Cas could have made him it, got external sponsors to contribute and they could have held off bigger Clubs sniffing around, like Warrington and he'd cost less on the cap. All hypothetical but you get the idea. It could be used in a number of different ways depending on the needs of each Club.

Indeedy. The simplest solution is to just allow each club to identify their own marquee player who doesn't count on the cap using whatever criteria they want. This then frees money from the amount allowed under the cap to invest in, say, more young players.

However, until it gets voted in, the details will never get thrashed out.

Whilst I'm against marquee exemption at this precise moment in time (personally I'd give it a few years), I think rather than dictating who qualifies as a marquee, what could be better is declaring anyone can be classified as a marquee, but (marquee salary - 100k) has to also be put aside for youth development, community work etc on top of whatever is already spent in those areas - but equally then to sign a player on 500k (minimum to sign a better aussie who could still play nrl imo) - a club has to prove they can afford an extra 800k, which is a lot in anyones book...

I think the problem with this is that it would emphasise the divide between the haves and the have nots, because you're making the marquee signing twice as expensive. We need to completely separate the marquee signing from youth development (and I think McManus is being disingenuous by trying to somehow link them). Yes, there needs to be much more effort put in to bringing young players through, but I can't see why this should somehow be linked to a marquee signing. The incentives need to be defined separately, like specifying that a high percentage - 25% or more - of players in the first team squad should have come through the club's academy, for example. The only place where the two become linked is if the marquee ruling can be used to keep a home grown British player in the country and in the sport.

I think the two have become linked because it underlines two separate paths the sport in this country can take. Nobody in this country is in a situation to "have it all" in terms of signing in players and developing their own, so its a case of which comes to the forefront, and which is brought in later.

Incentives for youth production AND marquees should be brought in at some point. The strength the sport in this country would gain if the international team gained a level of success is on a par with individual teams signing a "marquee" (for what id believe to be reasonably achievable) - so theres balance in each of the advantages. The problem is its becoming more and more "youthists" vs "marqueeists" - by tying them together we might feasibly achieve a compromise which otherwise looks unlikely.

One of the big arguments from those in favour (and was made by yourself) is that it frees money in the cap for more youth players - by tying them together it just makes that a requirement as opposed to an option. OF course theres a million different ways to go about doing so. Another I just read on VT (and expanded upon) is the "level" of marquee off cap is tied into the academy grade (grade 1 academy = first 100k only counts on the cap, grade 2 = first 250k on the cap, grade 3 = 400k on the cap, grade 4 = 500k on the cap) - it would still allow someone with a grade 4 academy to sign inglis on a mill a year, but its to their advantage to improve their academy to limit his cost, and free up cap space going forward ... But of course I'm going to like that idea being a saints fan with a grade 1 academy



Teams wont vote in marquee exemptions without the details thrashed out, the powers that be wont thrash out the details until its voted in ... Good place to be!