https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw Paying £25k of Clark, Currie and Tomkin's contracts to help keep them in SL and not every club were aware of this. Reckon we have any of ours involved in this too? Watkins and Hall most likely candidates if so?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw Paying £25k of Clark, Currie and Tomkin's contracts to help keep them in SL and not every club were aware of this. Reckon we have any of ours involved in this too? Watkins and Hall most likely candidates if so?

Shocking and unsurprising at the same time. Nothing the RFL do is considered or communicated professionally, you only have to look at the way they "sell" tickets to major events.

I'm not necessarily against central contracts, but it should have been discussed and agreed between the members and then implemented. Ready, Fire, Aim yet again...

Why are the RFL paying? Why not just have £25000 that doesn't count on the cap for all England players? But it should be the clubs paying the wages, I can see no reason why the RFL should be paying part of the wages of Warrington and Wigan players.

For England international duty.

If the RFL are paying x amount to british players for certain preseason and midseason access, plus the games, etc on a contract over and above their club contract, that seems like a good idea.

As a subsidy for certain players, not so much.

Agree with this.

I don't have a problem with, in fact I'd be all in favour of, central contracts in that fashion i.e. For England players. I'd also be looking at maybe doing the same for Welsh and French players? Try and prioritise and make the international game more appealing for players and clubs.

But not in favour of simply paying certain players a bit more. All that does is benefit the bigger clubs. Wire shouldn't be getting the benefit of Clark and Currie (nor should Leeds if it's happening here too).

Interestingly the Welsh RU are looking at central contracts for more than just Welsh players, e.g. Foreign or English players to try and boost the Regions domestic game. I wouldn't be in favour of that, but would be to boost the international game.

It's a farce simple as.
The RFL cant afford central contracts because they aren't multi millionaires & you can't just have a few on them.
If they are to use them it should be the best 17 & i doubt they can pay it as a one off let alone sustain it.
Dudn't they pay Cunningham/ST's & Farrall/Wigan to stay in RL during their prime years then promptly announce they didn't have enough money left to pay anyone else?
The salary Cap should be raised for Internatiinal players to a significant allowance & left to the Clubs to pay.
The RFL should only pay imo when/If a player is injured on International duty.
Finally it's ridiculous this isn't made public not the exact amounts as long as everyone earns the same but WHO gets the money for transparency.

Isn't really enough games at International level to warrant central contracts.

You look at the three players mentioned. Currie more than likely will be an international at some stage but he hasn't featured yet for England and will miss most of 2017. Tomkins hasn't featured for two years and has been injured a lot for the time he's been back and Clark only just edged Houghton out to be involved in 2016 and missed out in 2015.

Agree with all of this!

Seems to have been miscomunicated but I don't really see the big deal.

The big deal imo is only paying certain players especially without any transparency.
Also like i said above i doubt the RFL can afford it anyway.
Plus wouldn't that money be better spent on grass roots ,jnr development ,recruiting/retaining & training officials.

The RFL can afford central contracts as an addition to a players "club" wage. Even if it were say 50k per player (a significant addition) for 20 elite players that's only £1m per year.

I think it'd be well worth the money to guarantee a core of players for all international duty.

I get the point about not enough games, however I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Until either power is taken away from the clubs or they're compensated (effectively) we're never going to get more international games. We can't realistically add more games to the calendar as the players play too many as it is. We can't reduce the amount of domestic games (by much anyway) as the clubs are crying out for revenue. So I think the only way forward is to copy Union's approach and prioritise internationals. Have significantly more internationals (on a set calendar, same time, regular venues etc every year) whilst SL continues. The clubs get their revenue and the international game (and the sport as a whole) gets a much needed media and public profile boost.

One of the reasons we don't have enough international games is cos we can't get players released. Central contracts should help

also 'ambassadorial contracts' sounds a bit of a silly title, but if it means players are more available for PR and marketing thats worthwhile

Not going to happen, judging from the scarcity of marquee players.

My opinion only but releasing players isn't the reason we don't have more internationals. It's because the international game is poor. No matter how much we try and exspand there are only 3 international teams of quality. There is no demand for international games, the only internationals worth watching were the GB tours, and I cannot see that changing anytime in my lifetime whatever is done.

If Currie is worthy of one, why not Stevie Ward?

Maybe he is? I'm not sure the list stops at just those three. Like I said in the OP, Watkins and Hall would be strong candidates from us if so.

If Leeds & GH didn't know about this happening then I imagine we'll be hearing from him pretty soon in the YEP. If he doesn't say anything then likely we have players receiving the same too.

It isn't the only reason but it is a reason. the international window is tiny currently.

as for there not being the demand, compare and England international to an SL game. compare their viewing figures. The demand is comparatively huge.

Only if we play Australia and NZ and you can't just keep repeating that game over and over. If we play Wales, France or Scotland it'd be played somewhere like HKR because they wouldn't get enough of a crowd at larger venues.

England's last not aus/ NZ games were Scotland 21k. France 14k(in france) France 8k, France 22k, Fiji 25k, Ireland 24k.

Yeah World Cup games and a Four Nations double header with Aus vs NZ tells a clearer story. Played in the middle of a season and if SL games are still going on they'd struggle. If Leeds are playing Saints on Friday how many do you think will also go to HKR or Doncaster on Saturday to watch England vs Wales?

Not central contracts according to this & the payments go straight to the players, therefore, do not impact on the cap: www.loverugbyleague.com/news_247 ... ogram.html

Not central contracts according to this & the payments go straight to the players, therefore, do not impact on the cap: www.loverugbyleague.com/news_247 ... ogram.html

Yeah I'm not advocating a tily organised, poorly marketed, half d friendly in the middle of a season, played in some small northern stadium so I'm not sure of the relevance of your question.

But the argument is that players should be released from club duties DURING the season. And you can go book Old Trafford or St James Park for England vs Ireland if you want.....let see how full it would be.

more full than any of the awfully attended middle 8 games and we changed our whole system to invent those .

What relevance does that have in a debate about players being released for mid-season internationals?

And the reality is Leeds vs Batley last year got much more than a England vs Wales/Scotland/Ireland/France game would get played mid season alongside league fixtures.