When people scream that we should scrap the cap and spend spend spend, then i would like to point out that at the moment there is a huge financial crisis going on in Europe that provides a wonderful case study as to the consequences of spending beyond your means.

We in Britain thought it was wonderful in those 10 years under Labour when money was thrown around like confetti on Education and the NHS, loans were awarded aplenty and bankers awarded themselves huge unwarranted bonuses.
The end result however was a house of cards that came toppling down in 2008. Since then we have started to complain about the first spots of rain from Hurricane Bankrupt, but we havent even felt the deluge yet.

Something similar would face RL if it scrapped the cap. There would be a few years of glory as clubs went on a spending spree like the countries Greece and Ireland undertook. People would talk about a boom and how exciting it was. However it would all come crashing down, and all we would be left with would be a shrivelled husk of a game, that would be easily picked apart by rival sports. Just as we see now in Greece, which is having to sell all its family silver off to other countries to try to attempt to pay its bills, while at the same time begging for the White Teutonic Knight to come to their rescue and bail them out.

We have to therefore take the hit of such players leaving our sport. Realistically there are only probably 5-10 players Union would be interested in. These would be players able to play in the threequarters. Just look how the plan is for Eastmond to play wing or Fullback. Tomkins will probably play inside centre, just as Sonny Bill Williams does for the Allblacks.

I personally think the bigger threat to our game is from the NRL. I can seriously see them taking most of our best players in a few years time. I also think they will savage the Allblacks and Wallabies of talent because Southern Hemisphere Union will not be able to compete with the financial strength of the NRL.

Don't follow your logic - if they want our players now they just come and get them anyway. Very few (robes) turn them down.
The only difference is that they will have a lot more money but as you say, they will raid RU in Oz & NZ so there will be even fewer places available for UK RFL players.

Surely the standard of the NRL players overall will go up so even fewer of our homegrown player will make the "grade" in the opinion of the NRL.
As far as I'm aware they are not going to expand the no of NRL teams so there is only a finite/limited no of NRL squad places so why they would want more english players than now is beyond me.

It's just as likely that the RU imports will squeeze out some of the weaker aussie players and we will end up with more second rate aussies than we have now.

We won't be able to attract the likes of JL anymore.
More Flanno anyone?

I hardly think the Sunday Times is likely to include half-a-dozen league players in a list of promising players destined for the England RU side. It would be an embarrassment to the sport. As for them being put-off by recent signings - not likely. They had their fingers burned handing Farrell a gargantuan contract when he was a year either side of being shot. It didn't take them long to rectify the error. It takes time for any player to acclimatize to a new sport, which is why they (England RU - NOT the clubs) are now going exclusively for players age 19-22.

You've listed most of England's major targets over the past ten years. It should be said that just about all of them have been successful in some shape or form at club level and they (along with Henry Paul and other players from further back) warranted inclusion to the national team. Given the difficulties involved with switching to a foreign sport I'd say that's an excellent return which rather than putting them off league players is more than likely to further cement their desirability.



I think you're underestimating England's desperation for success and the colossal reserves of money these guys have at their disposal. The former (in the wake of England's crushing exit from the RWC) is now reaching unheard of levels and they will think nothing of blowing the best part of half a million on two or three players who stand no more than a modest chance of making the grade.

We can't use past history as a guide on this occasion as there is no precedent for where the RFU is going. They are getting stronger (financed by any number of international revenue streams) whilst League is mired in one of the worst hit regions of the worst hit nations in depression.

Even worse, the NRL is now so awash with money it can afford not only to tempt the best of the best SL players but those on the tier below. The extra cash in their system means we're struggling now to attract their third tier stars.

Fair play to you, that's one of the best posts I've ever seen on RL fans. We've got idiots on the Wigan board calling for us (fans) to boycott the International games. More than ever we as RL fans NEED to get behind the International team. The disgraceful treatment of Sam Tomkins in the Exiles game just played into RU hands. Sadly some fans are wringing their hands and rejoicing in the fact that it will weaken Wigan instead of acknowledging the fact that it actually weakens Rugby League in general. I felt the same way when I heard about Eastmond leaving so it's not a club thing, but I honestly don't know how we stop it, but I will ask the question at Wigans shareholders meeting tomorrow. As you know on here I'm not frightened of putting my head up to be shot at.

There is only one way to hamper union. It is rather simple and wouldn't cost any money. But it is controversial and it would kill the international game.

Change the rules.

League has become a victim of its players utility. Over thirty years we have completely de-skilled the game. Where once there were specialist positions which took years to learn there are now simply slots into which players can be arranged and re-arranged. A player can be at fullback one week, centre the week after and scrum half the week after that.

But whilst multi-skilled players who can move smoothly between positions makes for attractive rugby (or at least it should do) - it also means they can move smoothly between sports. The Union guys must be laughing their heads off. We've made it EASY for them to pick and choose the best league talent. I mean, there was a time when they'd only take wingers. Anyone else simply couldn't adapt. Now they are taking second row forwards! The only position left is prop.

If we cannot find the money to fight them we must bite the bullet and introduce specialization. I'm not saying it will prevent Union from calling - but it will make things difficult.

Unfortunately, I can't see the Australians coming along for the ride. Why should they when their game is strong? Which means the end of international rugby.

It's a tough choice but our backs are firmly against the wall.

So all in all it could be worse for us. Our chums over the hill are losing there talismanic coach , union look like they are trying to snare the Tomkins sisters (lifelong wigan fans apart from when they were warrington fans) and lulu's making noises about going off to the NRL too at the end of next season.

Ah well - If they want to bog off to union there isnt a great deal anyone can do about it other than force them to see out there contract which would be counter productive.

I've said for many years that the Aussies don't give a flying fek about the International game, just the State of Origin.

I wanted us to send our best academy players, young coaches, administrators etc over there to learn their trades from the best. We need their help but I can't see it happening until sadly it's too late.

There are well developed plans to expand the NRL. The new TV deal will create further impetus from people wishing to invest in RL down under.
Already bids have been expressed from amongst others Perth, Papua New Guinea and Wellington in NZ.
These are not the micky mouse bids that we see in RL, but fully realised multi million pound projects backed by real money.
They know that the NRL is a goldmine and they wish to mine it.

And sadly that is the thoughts of many RL "fans" who can't see the wood for the trees. It doesn't surprise me that you were one of them.

I was surprised however by very good discussion on Red Vee and fair play to those who appear to look at the bigger picture.

Just finally will you be attending any of the International games?

Typical of you to resort to personal insult.

He was stating the bleeding obvious. If a player wants to cross codes or go to the NRL there is bugger all we can do about it.

However, since you are constantly harping on about how fabulous your u20s side is, should Tomkins be off to Union then I'm sure you have an equally talented replacement for him already lined up.

One man's departure is another's opportunity.

I will indeed (and supporting England and EVERY player in an England shirt - even though it should be a GB shirt) and you may also notice if you look at what I've written nowhere do I state I'm happy to be losing players to Union. From a Saints point of view I dont care but from an international point of view S Tomkins would be a loss (as was Eastmond).

Also like I said , not sure wigan could do much to stop them leaving if they set their minds on it and I would be against allowing any team to break the cap to keep a player in these current times of fiscal hardship.

You should know by now Rogues just reads what he wants too and makes the rest up. Am I sad wigan may end up in turmoil? Nope not one bit, would I be sad if RL lost a talent like the Rat? yes I would. If he wants of of his 'Wigan wonder land' I'd have him at Saints , we could straighten out his niggly side and we'd have a top class player on our hands to replace Wello

What sort of specialisation would you want?
Scrummaging, union would love that.
Maybe adopt the NFL and have defence and offensive teams, but then the individual wages of a 50 man squad would be pitiful as no RL team could afford to pay big bucks to so many players They struggle to pay the current 25 man squads more than an average of around £45k per player a year. With 50 man squads we would be down to £20k part time players again.

Our backs are not against the wall. RL is in the ascendant and RU knows it. The NRL was for years a drugged up, chained 800 pound Gorilla, however it's now gone cold turkey and broken free from its News Limited shackles. It financial muscle will dominate the Southern Hemisphere and indeed world rugby of both codes.
All that RU can hope for is that its rich Northern Hemisphere cousins at Twickers HQ, can win a few skirmishes against the embattled Northern RL fortress.
However they know that we have survived and indeed prospered for over 100 years despite their best efforts to destroy us. All the while the RFU waste money and effort picking off the odd player in a game of cat and mouse up north, the Aussies will be building an indomitable RL empire.

Not really true as far as I can see in the near future.
[urlhttp://www.theroar.com.au/2011/06/20/nrl-expansion-plans-on-hold-until-2015/[/url

Even if they go to 18 teams in 2015, that doesn't represent a massive increase in demand or influx of UK players when the best of southern hemisphere yawnion talent will be on the NRL doorstep and ripe for picking.
The point is; if they don't want our most of our decent players now; why would they want them when they have stacks of money and only two extra teams' squads at most to fill up?

All it really means is that we will get an even inferior quality of second rate aussies over here.
If our coaches have enough sense (debatable), they should see the opportunity to develop and use home grown talent instead of relying on inferior quality imports.

God, I'm sounding like Gary Schofield now - shoot me!

If they have money to spend (and it's looking increasingly likely they will have, the best NRL teams would be foolish to not have a scouting network that includes the north of England. Who knows where the NRL could go with this kind of money? It could start them on the path to being a NFL, MLB, Premiership of our game i.e. a true genuine global brand. Although it might mean we lose some players to the NRL the overall increase in exposure for the sport is potentially ludicrous.

That's League's business.



I think old age is beginning to affect your memory, mate. Don't you recall our conversation several months ago in which we discussed the current and likely future economic climate in relation to Rugby League? I distinctly recall you agreeing with me when I said League is likely to struggle given a) the seemingly endless depression affecting the North of England, b) Union's ever-increasing finances and c) the NRL's latest TV deal.

League is not in the ascendant. Our results against the best team in the world are an embarrassment. Crowds are not what they were and neither is SL's sponsorship. We are desperately short of talent and Union is about to embark on a massive spending programme. The guy interviewed on SKY wasn't talking about bringing one or two players to union a season. The emphasis was on [ibloc signings. [/i



Why use the NRL's windfall as a counterargument when it was conceded in the first place? We're talking BRITISH rugby here. Not the world game. And what good a cash-rich NRL will do SL I've no idea. Sure, we benefit at international level but what's the point if the game HERE has become a joke with washed-up, third-rate deadbeats being the star men at the top clubs?



Unfortunately, this "fortress" appears to be leaking our best talent. On the other hand THEIR fortress is like the home of King Croesus.



Yeah? How much are the season tickets?

I disagreed with you on the union bit, but said i expected the NRL to become a magnate for British RL players and potentially like the NBA in Basketball or NHL in ice Hockey. That doesnt mean league is dieing it means its growing.

Mugs you are talking British RL , i am looking at the bigger picture. Just as you cant look at RU without taking in their international game, so you cant take in the state of RL without looking at the NRL.

I also disagree about there being no point to the game if you are not watching superstars.
RL has never had genuine superstars in this country it has only ever had local heroes. As such to be a fan of RL you cant be someone hypnotised by glamour, because there is little hype and glamour in British RL. What attracts people to RL is the game itself, and the genuine feeling of community amongst its followers.
You see the same thing outside the realms of Premiership football. Tens of thousands of fans watch championship teams knowing those players are second rate, but they do so because they love their football and are passionate in following their local side.

In a war there are always casualties. We will lose a few good men along the way, but just as Britain stood firm against the Nazi Hordes so should RL stand firm against the Twickenham white shirts. For we know that across the Oceans a leviathan has awoken. Just as the USA turned the tide against Hitler, the Australian NRL will ensure that League wins the Rugby war.

Money talks in sport but we have the better more marketable game (for the masses), swings and roundabouts, they both survive side by side like they have done for years Union will always be bigger and League will always get it's plaudits from the occasional neutral. I'm not worried.

Exactly. To be honest I don't particularly care all that much for the NRL. It's not that I don't enjoy watching. It's just that it is too far away to be socially relevant. It's not like I can just nip down to Brisbane to take in a few games here and there. And the NRL can stand up for itself. It is not under any threat.



Of course you can. There are thousands of British SL (and lower league) fans who haven't watched a single NRL game and have no plans to do so - just as there are millions of football fans who haven't the foggiest idea who the Dutch champions are.



You're confusing stardom with ability. A "star" is a media construction. You can be a world class player whilst never being a "superstar". To be honest, I could quite easily live with no stars at all. But a game without talent is at an evolutionary dead end.



Martin Offiah was a superstar. So was Ellery Hanley. Paul Sculthorpe wasn't too far away either with his regular appearances in the media. But don't try and convince me that the game never had outstanding talent. It did. The problem we face to today is talent is being leeched away from the sport. And THAT is something I cannot simply pass off as insignificant.



Why do you keep talking about "glamour"? I never mentioned it.



Alex Murphy was "second rate"? Tommy Voll, Billy Boston, Ellery Hanley, Kevin Ward, John Woods, Tony Myler, Brian McTigue - all "second rate"? These are some of the very people who DEFINED the sport of Rugby League.



For heaven's sake quit with the cod-Churchillian nonsense. It might stir the passions but it doesn't alter the facts.

What are these facts that you refer to?

I actually quite liked the way it was put .....and nowt wrong with passion

The number of players Union will target is probably lower than most would think. Despite some moderate success with league players (who were deliberately fast-tracked into the England side) there have been a fair few failures as well - Chev Walker, Danny Williams and Lee Smith from Leeds for example. If we get our s kicked by Aus/NZ again this year, it's hard to imagine Union falling over themselves to sign up players.

I do not rate Josh Tomkins that highly, is he is above average player but that is all, can you blame anyone at his age if he is offered the "rumoured" big money, I would take it!

So many Super League players have tweeted this last few days that they would love that type of money and also the chance to play international rugby in front of packed crowds!

There is not sadly the money in our game currently to throw around to keep players, so many clubs are running at a loss, gate receipts do not cover wages neither do the local lotteries that RL clubs used to run successfully, the Euro and UK Lottery has taken a lot of that cash flow!

Woah!!!! Great classical reference there. Probably only three people understood it though.