I think it is the same.

If your outgoings (mortgage, lifestyle, loans, etc) are locked into one set of figures then to expect a change to half of that (thereabouts) is a major change. I could live on £120k like a Lord but that's not the point. I couldn't live on half my money now without it affecting my whole family. Therefore I'd be tempted to take a job that maintains my (and my family's) lifestyle rather than accepting half the money just for the "love" of it.

That wasn't what he said though. He was comparing dropping from £200k to £120k, which is a salary you can still live on comfortably.

You were comparing dropping from £30k to £15k which is a salary you would struggle to live on, let alone any comfort.

And by the way, for £120k you really couldn't live like a lord.

Up to you. I've turned down a few more lucrative jobs in the past because the one I am (or was, depending) in comfortably pays my bills with some extra to play with and save for my family. I'd rather earn less and be happy than go to work every day and be p***ed off and miserable for more money. There is, as the old cliche goes, more to life.

Also, most places he would live playing RL will be cheaper to live in than Bath, so the real terms drop wouldn't be so huge.

Plus we're all blindly speculating about the two salaries anyway.

Another pointless post trawling the past of a different sport. [uDid you watch the Rugby Union game on Saturday? [/uHe was cack. Can't pass (in fact he didn't pass the whole game), lost in defence and desperately slow. And before you say he didn't get any ball (you did watch the match didn't you - it would sort of be required to comment on what I posted) England enjoyed nearly 60% posession and he dropped his first two passes - both of which he overran.

And where do you get off assuming that I boo Sam Tomkins? Have you ever met me or stood at a rugby game with me? I don't think so.

The posters on here are not a true representation of the Leeds fans or indeed the wider paying public I would suggest. Our game currently has a shortage of real classy attacking players IMO and Eastmond has that class and the ability to create things out of nothing. Great attacking players have always attracted higher gates as they bring out the less tribal rugby lovers who are will pick and choose their games to watch.

As I have said it is most unlikely that this is more than a storm in a teacup and he will go on to play for England RU in the 6 Nations in the New year but if he were to return whichever club signs him will benefit from increase gate money and better results.

He is not in SBW's class, but then who else is? That should not blind us to the fact that Eastmond has rare attacking ability and would light up a game that has become dulled by dominating defences.

I must have been watching a different super league to you.

I wasn't referring to the score lines. I was meaning that coaches concentrate on defence above attack. They select players who appear to spend more time in the gym than on perfecting the subtler skills. This produces good tacklers with great stamina but is not the best for producing the side step or body swerve or retaining their natural speed. The result is backs who are really 2nd rowers and rely on physical strength rather than traditional silky skills.

With so many games decided by momentum, often coming from a run of 50/50 decisions which gift possession to one side the best way to turn the tide is by an exciting player's individual attacking skills.

There are not too many backs currently in SL with the natural skills of say Watkins but I fear that in bulking him up to be able to withstand a high tackle count there is the risk of dulling some of his pace and footwork ability.

Look its only an opinion but you have to agree there is currently a shortage of backs in SL that can transform a game. Burrow is an example of rare rugby talent where speed and footwork used in an unorthodox way has been so successfull, yet he is criticised by fans of his own team because he doesn't conform, so some would have him relegated him to the bench at best.

I agree there's a shortage of skill across the boards with a focus on athleticism rather than skill but that certainly doesn't manifest itself in better defence, quite the opposite, I would like defences in Super League to be far more intense than they are.

but its relative and a short career so it is not quite like you say...

but also that £120k per year is x how ever many years contract it is, rather than the relative insecure position most people work in.

In terms of pure ability, Eastmond has a lot to offer - although I'd say there are 3/4 better NRL players in any position he can play, and Sam Tomkins at his best is a far better player than anything I've seen from him.

Also, have a look at Eastmond's last few 'performances' for Sts. No sign of any running game there - just a player going through the motions and not wanting to be tackled. That part of his attitude stank - whether he was going to leave for RU or not.

The injuries would be a major concern. He's effectively lost a couple of years out of his career already. Its a shame he isn't still in RL, because Bill Eve isn't able to roll out the biscuit bones comedy classic every time his name is mentioned.

BTW I dispute entirely this idea of star players bringing in mega crowds. Even if Leeds signed SBW, they'd undoubtedly get a couple of extra thousand for his first game, but over a season? I think not much of a boost. Otherwise there'd be no need for a salary cap because 'star' players would pay for themselves through the gates.

It was a question not an assumption.

We are talking about SL not the NRL. Eastmond can play in postions from 1 to 7 in SL with very not many serious challengers.

He may or may not have an attitude problem which in any case could be sorted. But I have been talking about his rugby skills which have made him a double code International and he still is only 24.

The history of rugby league is full of instances where star players have regularly increased the gates. I was brought up on the likes of Lewis Jones, Brian Bevan, David Watkins, van Volllenhoven, David Watkins, Jonathan Davies, E.T.,Meninga,Bevan etc etc who all attracted larger crowds to watch them play but also a star player with the abilty to play a major role in winning games can also increase income by bringing success or even just the the promise of success. The short term signing of Andrew Johns and Adrian Morley were cases in point.

A star player need only bring in a 1000 or so per gate to bring in an extra 250k for their club but if he contributes to more wins and more exciting play then the attendance will creep up further.

The salary cap is in place not because of real star signings but rather to guard against foolish management making star salary offers to players who are no longer or have never been real stars.

I am sure SBW has increased the gates for the NZ matches dramatically and would do so if he ever nmoved to SL. Stars draw extra crowds in football and most other sports so why not SL?

This brings me back to the point that SL is suffering from a lack of real star players with classy attacking skills IMO.

The last paragraph is a bit strange - salary cap is so the clubs try and avoid going bust - although that still hasn't happened. Star players draw crowds because with them in the side the side wins more regularly which increases crowds as speccies love a winner.

The point is people trot out the old nonsense that star players bring consistently increased crowds - which is what they'd have to do every week to justify paying them a shedload. The reality is far less exciting, and Leeds fans in particular have seen the real impact time and again.

If it were true, then clubs would be able to sign star players, get crowd boosts and there really would be no need for a salary cap because it would be a self-sustaining virtuous cycle of sign star player, increase revenue, sign another star player.

I suspect it was exactly this kind of false logic which Leeds followed under Doug Laughton. That went ever so well. Widnes did the same with RU players, yet the increased revenue they got obviously got nowhere near offsetting the increased costs of their contracts.

As for comparisons to the NRL, the point is that if a SL side wanted to sign a class RL player today, and had the money to do so, there are quite simply better players 1-7 than Eastmond has ever shown in RL.

Professional rugby is in the entertainment business. The paying public would prefer to watch the best players and as I said previously history overall confirms that gates increase for most sports including League. Yes of course there will be exceptions. It was certainly not nonsense when Leeds signed Lewis Jones for a then record transfer fee (todays equivalent of be well over £400,000.) He not only increased the attendances at Headingley but at most other grounds he played on. The real stars can do that.

I repeat that I have been commenting on SL and not the NRL so your comparison is irrelevant to my point.

IMO SL is suffering from a dearth of true classy players at present which has in part been caused by Union going pro in 1995, the changes in exchange rate with the Australian currency and finally the increases in the NRL salary cap. To base your argument on what Doug Laughton did or imply that there is a wealth of classy star players out there for all the clubs to sign could be called false logic or even a red herring fallacy.

This is not in any way intended to denegrate our home grown stars but the imported stars were the icing on the cake. We now lack the opportunity to make those same big name signings. If you can produce home grown stars then all well and good but only a few sides are doing this and this cream is being slowly skimmed off by the NRL and Union. So if we ever the likes of SBW or Eastmond were to become available we would be foolish not to seriously consider them.

Where would the Premier League be without the biggest stars on the world stage?

If stars don't increase gates, why did Hanley have written in both his Wigan and Leeds contracts, to have a share of the gate over a certain number? That number was higher than they were getting before his signature.

Were Leeds home crowds any bigger with the likes of Hanley and Schofield in the side than they are now in the "beige" era?

Did someone really just put Eastmond and SB Williams in the same sentence?

I'd imagine even Eastmond's agent would be struggling to keep a straight face when delivering that line.

At this point a returning Eastmond would IMO add very few additional numbers through the turnstiles at any SL club.

Yes. You did. Just then.

On Twitter recent pic of Kyle Eastmond partying in Leeds with Bailey, Burgess, Widdop etc.

No but they went from around 9-10k in the late 80s early 90s to 12-13k

Yippee... That could mean all are playing for Leeds next season. Right .? Nothing like a bit of bonding to enhance better team spirit as proved with the England camp

Exactly.

That is not the point. We were not comparing eras otherwise I would have pointed out the Headingley record attendance of 40,175 or the Wigan record v Saints of 47,747 in 1959 for star studded sides.

The question you should ask yourself is what would the Headingley attendances have been like without the likes of Hanley and Schofield. I think I know the answer.