Union will be sniffing around alot of League talent so we better just get used to it. Lomax from what I understand is a massive Saints fan and is doing what he's always wanted to do .. play for Saints. If money is or becomes his motivation then there is sod all we could do to keep him as even without a salary cap we couldnt match a union offer... or NRL for that matter

I think he'll be a saint for at least 3 seasons

I agree but I think that's because of his love for the club and not much to do with a contract.

You never know, he might sign a new deal soon.

I've said it for years - the talent drain from league to union is only going to increase more and more over time. There's nothing we can do about it sadly - all we can do is get as much mileage as we can out of players like Lomax, maybe make a transfer fee out of them when they get poached and then be there ready to snap them back up again when they fail in t'other code (as most of them have done in the past and will do in future).

And we are taking seriously a poster who has posted all of 15 posts?

I suspect we have been visited by a creature living under a bridge on the other side of the Lump myself ...

Well it won't be anytime soon, I can say that for certain.

The Unionistas would be mad to at least not look at him, but like kyle, i cant see were he'd fit into a Union side. He's a good, but not union standard kicker, hes fast but not union winger or full back fast, He's a very skillful league halfback, but union is a very different game in the halves.
Hope he'll stay with us for his entire career

Agreed it is a big gamble, a union club going for a league halfback, the playmaker roles are very different. In league there isn't a massive difference between 6 and 7, in the last 10 years or so the way league has gone has mainly been with one halfback on each side of the pitch, or having one organising/kicking halfback (Long) and one running type halfback (Pryce). Union tends to have a very distinct job for scrum-half, fly-half and then the current fashion is to play a second fly-half at outside centre. Henry Paul and Iestyn Harris ended up being the centre. The one who has settled into a union fly-half role is Stephen Myler, whose more kicking oriented game is better suited to union than league anyway.

I reckon Eastmond will be back after a season or two but one common denominator between all the ex league players who went to union and then came back, is none of them have been as successful in league second time around.

Steve Ganson on Twitter?

I think Union are more likely to go after Gaskell and Foster because of their kicking abilities.

FFS I hope this doesn't come to fruition.

The RFL have to do something though before the unionites come knocking on the door,I don't want or need another Eastmond saga like we had last season.

What do the RFL fo when the cash put is no longer brimming over, when we still have no sponsor named yet for Super League in 2012? We can't even ensure that home developed youngsters get at least a fee and or not able to just walk for no transfer fee these days.

First consider the source.

Next this player drain has resulted in erm two players going to union.

If we can withstand the loss of two players to union over the course of a season then we are not a sport worth talking about.

I'll comment when I see more than an alleged conversation with a ref who as far as I know would not be involved in players contract negotiations at any level. And certainly should not be so close to a player to allow for speculation over vested interests when refing a match.

In other words not much to see here. lol

Were you p1ssed when your wrote this?

Why cant we have any fees for youngsters. Surely if they are under contract to play it does not matter what sport they are moving to a fee still has to be paid. Its a contract of employment after all.

The lack of big money in our game these days means clubs in my opinion and that is what it is! who develop young players should get some compensation, otherwise as money gets tighter any young player who wants to move on (or who is told a large club is interested in him) just does not sign a new contract so he goes for free? and saves that club money, well we may as well not have contracts. In fact more and more contracts are not worth the money they are printed on.

What you propose there is a version of slavery. How much did you pay your first employer for developing you?

Contracts should be honoured and maybe written a little better. But there is a huge difference between a contract which is a voluntary agreement for the supply of goods and services and a fee once that contract has expired.

What if like most players they dont make it to SL standard the club can just drop them with no such fee once the contract is over.

Slavery for a fee to be paid for a young player that has been developed, perhaps keep it to players under 23 and only from other super league clubs, the current system which you support if fine for the rich clubs so they get richer!

I know it would never get through as the leading clubs control Super League and only see the rest of the teams as make up of a league!

There is already a system in place which dictates that if a player under the age of 23 is offered a contract by his club that is as good as or better than their expiring deal then a transfer fee has to be paid. That was certainly the case three or four years ago, anyway.

You are quite correct, but the simple truth is some clubs ride shod over that and get away with it!

Under that rule wouldn't we get a fee for Kyle?

It wouldn't happen because its against the law. no contract therefore no fee.

Good point. It struck me when I first heard about that rule that it might be tricky to maintain legally. Surely a 22 year old has as much right to free access to the labour market as a 24 year old. Perhaps it has gone by the wayside. Or perhaps it only applies to transfers within the game.

You've got this the wrong way round. Lomax told me that the RFU had made Ganson a big money offer. He's to be the new Jonny Wilkinson apparently.