Is this really so worrying ?
A top league player is tempted to try the other code, so what !
If union can come up with the cash and make an offer that Inglis can't refuse, what can we actually do about it.

In the UK, there is a massive disparity between the spending power of Union over League but, this isn't the case down under.
And if Inglis is considering a switch it mean one of only two possibilities.
Either he genuinely wants to try the other code or, he wants to negotiate a better contract in league.

If players want to gamble their future in the other code we should not stop them.
How can we, as supporters of RL, complain about poaching players, when for 30/40 years we were trying ourselves to cherry pick players from the other code
and as happened in reverse, there were no guarantees of success.
Some players adapt well and others fail but, you cant stop anyone moving.
What we have to do is make League the better option so that fewer players are tempted.

NRL Salary cap is AU$5,500,000...the Aviva Premiership is up to £5,500,000.
According to xe.com that's AU$10,880,000, so close to doube the NRL.
The French have a cap of AU$14,500,000.

=#0000802014 /15 Salary Cap
Each season's Salary Cap will be officially announced in January previous to the start of that season therefore the 2014/15 Salary Cap was announced on 21 January 2014 confirming the following:
£4.76 million - Senior Salary Cap
£240,000 - Academy Credits * see definition below
1 Excluded Player (Salary is not included in the Salary Cap)
Injury Replacement *** see notes below
Clubs can also benefit from the £200,000 Academy Cap which supports the development and retention of home grown talent at each Club.

=#800000NRL PAYMENTS FOR THE TOP 25
$5.5 million - Basic payments for the Top 25 players including Sponsor Servicing Allowance ($5.3m) which is automatically given to all clubs to compensate players for club sponsorship activities including appearances and endorsements.
Long Serving Player Allowance ($200K) for eligible players who have played eight continuous years of grade football with that club including Holden Cup and NSW Cup.

+ $231,250 - Paid by the NRL to the RLPA towards players' Retirement Account Contribution.

+ $100,000 - Paid by the NRL to the RLPA towards their administration funding.

*Payments under the actual salary cap total $5.50 million paid directly by clubs across the Top 25 players. The additional $331,250 paid into the RLPA Retirement and Administration Fund Contribution is not defined as a salary cap payment.

What players can earn outside the salary cap:

$600,000 - Marquee Player Allowance - any or all of the Top 25 players at each club can share in payments made by club sponsors seeking to use a player's intellectual property. These may be guaranteed in the playing contract by clubs.
$100,000 - Motor Vehicle Allowance – a maximum amount of five motor vehicles may be provided to players in the Top 25 outside of the salary cap. (Valued at $20,000 each).

Unlimited - Players can earn unlimited amounts from corporate sponsors who are not associated with the club and who do not use the game's intellectual property (no club logos, jerseys or emblems) provided these are pre-approved. These agreements may not be negotiated by the club as an incentive for a player to sign a contract, nor can they be guaranteed by the club.

Unlimited - Tertiary education fees, approved traineeships, medical insurance costs, relocation/temporary accommodation costs are not included in the cap but must be approved.

All very complex, however. I was interested to see how many players would that cover, so I popped onto the Leicester Tigers website and their 1st team squad is (unless I miss counted) 49 players strong. So yes the cap is bigger in the English RU. But also the number of players this is spread across is nearly twice as many. The NRL cap is about the top 25 players. So spending power per player is not that dissimilar once all the add on's are taken into account.

However, Union have a huge 1 player excluded from the cap, therefore they could spend anything to bring a marque player in.
Also none of the cap as far as I can see cover the amount England can pay to a player. So you can see the draw for Burgess if he gets a marque allowance + England fees then he can name his price.


Funnily enough the academy players get roughly the same cap. $400,000 and £200,000 for each league. No idea how much that is per player as I did not look at academy sizes.

Which is all well and good, but as the discussion had slid into a debate about financial attractiveness, I'll ask you which has the larger salary cap? Not how many players are needed, or how many kids/home grown are covered, but simply, which has the larger salary cap?
Also, which has a marquee player allowance, that would enable Inglis to be signed off the cap?

2 options here

NRL or Aviva Premiership?

Again I find myself questioning the sanity of normally sane posters when it comes to admitting that we sit down the pecking order across a number of off-field comparisons in regard to Union.

It's a moot point as Rugby Union has been scientifically proven to be so boring that time takes at least 3 x longer to pass, therefore warping the Union players perception of how hard he's worked for his salary. In effect the average Union player perceives himself to have worked 3 times longer for his money meaning that Rugby League players, for whom time passes twice as fast as normal, only work for one sixth of the time for the same money. This means that any comparison of the respective salary caps need to have the Union cap divided by 3 while the League cap is times two.

Hope that helps

Or in other words

Who gives a feck about Union it's tripe!

They do have a point. 15 fit guys (or as fit as Union players can be) averaging out at 6ft make pitch dimensions designed for 5ft 5in nicotine-sucking Weebles seem cramped.

I wouldn't put it past the ruggeroids to drop to 13-a-side.

The pressure would then naturally build for some kind of merger.

The only defence would be return to position specialisation, thus making player switches more challenging.

I can't say I'd be opposed to greater specialisation. I've mentioned such in the past as a possible answer to increased Union poaching to a chorus of ROLLEYES. On the surface, returning to a form of rugby in which stand-offs and second-row forwards possess complex non-transferrable skillsets seems like an anachronism. But I don't see why it isn't possible to return to a more tactically diverse game whilst retaining the benefits afforded by full professionalism such as increased fitness, athleticism, size etc.

Watching James Graham demanding the ball at first receiver for England with five minutes remaining against the Australians (and functioning as well as any attacking pivot that day) is a measure of how ball skill has undoubtedly improved ten-fold since the day when the best scrum half the country could field, Deryck Fox, failed miserably to match Graham's attacking threat in eighty minutes at Wembley.

But if props can now comfortably fill in in the halves we have surely past the point when terms such as "prop", "scrum half", "winger" are also anachronisms. If League follows its own tradition of cutting away extraneous parts of the game (a tradition it has admittedly profited from) then it must inevitably consider simplifying positional terms - perhaps to just "forwards" and "backs", or even doing away with the lot in an Orwellian move to make discussion of the game practically impossible.

given the number of your posts in threads that discuss union, that answer you seek is YOY DO

YOY DO?

Is that some yokel, M4, West Country, village idiot type speak?

I don't comment on Rugby Union threads, I comment on Rugby League threads on a Rugby League forum, threads that have been derailed by you.

typo police....It's about the best you have.
As for the thread, it's topic and me derailing it......lol.....
it's a thread about Union....you are commenting on it and I didn't change/derail it. You're infatuated with union.......seriously...seek help

You are right to some degree, I am fascinated with how something so evidently rubbish, something that is so turgid, boring and lacking in high quality skill can get so much media coverage and in turn attract so much money.

In every aspect where Union shares commonality with The a Greatest Game, the Union skills are practiced to an almost juvenile standard in comparison. Technically the skills in Rugby Union are akin to those in 1970s Rugby League, union skills are simply awfull!

It's a bit like the story of the Emporers New Clothes, I'm just waiting for Prince William to be sat in the altogether in his Twikkers seat when some kid shouts, "this is boring" and everyone will realise that Billies naked and Rugby a Unions God damned awfull to watch.

YOY need to be careful there officer.....
btw......find a post where I've ever said league isn't a better game than union! As I'm new here, why not trawl through gutterfax's 21000 too......you won't find one. It's the administration of league that's cap and
e need for some fans to laugh at the bigger and more popular game in the hope at some imaginary visitor to this forum will think league is a bigger game

I never said you did, either as enigmatic or Gutterfax.

I also never said The Greatest Game was bigger but it's imeasurably better

We agree.
we're not dating, but it's a start

Back on topic.
Before union worry about getting rid of flankers they need to sort out the fact that they play two different codes, what we know as union in the northern hemisphere, and Super Series (or as I call it "Rugby League with line outs"icon_wink.gif.

On the point of defending teams not committing players at the breakdown, this is already happening. Often there is only a single token defender committed to a ruck.

As for a merger of RU and RL, this is more likely to come from Aus. where there is less class history, and where Super Series is already blurring the lines. But the power in RU is still in England, and the money in RU is still in the south of France. Both of those will resist a merger tooth and nail for a while yet.

'Ways to make rugby a safer sport' on BBC Sport site... www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31641675 Thought I'd give this a look as there's probably plenty of common ground here, 2nd suggestion 'Make head-guards compulsory for junior players' really caught my eye... "When Solly plays for his the club it's limited contact - one proper tackle, release the man after three seconds, a set of six tackles a side" That sounds kinda familiar. It could catch on. Certainly not the usual 'posh kids walking around a field a bit while the poshest boy in the school kicks at goal' crapfest. How long has 'Union' been getting taught like this?

'Ways to make rugby a safer sport' on BBC Sport site... www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31641675 Thought I'd give this a look as there's probably plenty of common ground here, 2nd suggestion 'Make head-guards compulsory for junior players' really caught my eye... "When Solly plays for his the club it's limited contact - one proper tackle, release the man after three seconds, a set of six tackles a side" That sounds kinda familiar. It could catch on. Certainly not the usual 'posh kids walking around a field a bit while the poshest boy in the school kicks at goal' crapfest. How long has 'Union' been getting taught like this?

If union go to 13 and speed up there ruck play as the welsh are already doing and league slow right down the play the ball then there is a potential for a hybrid game this decade.

No there's potential for the Union Governing bodies to admit the Northern boys were right and League is the better game.

Once that happens they can develop to a "League Model" by pass rugby league and that could be bye bye Superleague as I can't see SKY sponsoring it if the games are going similar.
It might be quite a few years yet, but if the RL keep the downward spiral of marketing, sponsors and media objectives and add the weak salary cap then most clubs will go part time or worse the bigger clubs could look at the financial advantage of promoting a hybrid game with the bigger union clubs.
Our game has lost its intensity and is getting spoiled with technical foul play by the players and rule inconsistency by the officials, our game needs a complete overhaul.

Time for Big Nigel to earn his corn and arrange some kind of protection of RL's identity. By all means allow Union to revert to 13 a-side, but the world needs to know that it's an adaptation of the league code before our sport gets lost in the union publicity machine. There could also be a lot of mileage in RL milking the fact that union is becoming more like the greatest game of this happened.

Be proactive now Nigel, before Union do this as we don't have the resources to fight it after they've done it.

I won't hold my breath

I've long suspected that the future of both codes would rest on a couple of things.

Firstly, the evolution of Union and more specifically how much like Rugby League Rugby union could become before the two sports are almost indistinguishable from each other bar a few specific rules like line outs.

Secondly, sky televisions desire to have another sport which rivals football or at least gets as close as any other sport could.
If Rugby union were to reduce the number of players to 13 and start policing their rucks and mauls more than they do at present in an effort to speed and tidy them up, then I can envisage a TV offer from sky which tries to force the top clubs from both sports to play in a hybrid league.

Imagine if the next television negotiations an offer of £200 million for five years is placed on the table of both league and union take it or leave it.

However a second offer is placed on the table £1.5 billion for three years to cover a league which will see the top clubs from rugby league and the top clubs from rugby union playing against each other in a hybrid competition.

Wigan v Bath, Leeds v Leicester, Northampton V Saint Helens, Hull v London, Warrington v Cardiff, Newcastle v Gloucester, Manchester Reds v Saracens, Wakefield City v Wasps

The powerbrokers from super league and Unions premiership would find it hard to turn down such a proposition. Rugby league would obviously carry on in the lower divisions as would Union in its lower divisions.

Aside from initial novelty value. What sustainable future would this have for fans? Fans who really like Rugby Union. And fans who really like Rugby League. I don't think there would be a sustainable market for it since there's no passion or interest in a hybrid game. Or is there?

If Union continues to change its rules and it isn't a huge leap from Union to hybrid rules then I think fans will watch the hybrid game because that competition will contain all the high quality teams.

The higher value TV contract would enable a higher salary cap, better facilities therefore better trained and prepared athletes. If SKY threw their marketing and promotions campeign 100% behind it then what was left of League and Union would struggle for exposure and presence.

In the end the quality of the clubs, the truly National presence, that neither Union or League genuinely have at the moment, and the higher profile would see it prosper.

With the ARU bankrupt and SKYs Corporate partners being big players in Australia and NZ it wouldn't be hard to see them being forced into some form of reunification/hybrid as well.

Just musing but if a reunification was ever to happen I think this is how it would take place

I've thought about this in the past, but the key to a hybrid game is not 15 or 13 a-side, or line-outs, or scrums, or even the distance you have to retire from the ruck. The key is how you recycle the ball, and whether you give protected possession to one side for a period. If I had to boil down the difference between the games to one point, it would be this : in League, you have protected possession for 6 tackles. So you can take risks with the ball, and run in isolation away from your teammates, knowing that you will retain possession. It encourages passing play. This doesn't apply in union, where a safety fist approach (which is where all professional coaches in either game tend to go towards) mitigates against ever moving the ball away from your own forwards, and seeking to put the ball in your opponents' territory through a kick, even if you've only just received it yourself. There is a bias caused by the contested possession in Union which mitigates against passing play. In addition, while we may moan about the number of penalties at the PTB, if you compare the number of stoppages at the PTB for penalties or knock-ons, then it is tiny compared to the number of offences which occur at a contested ruck in RU, which is why their game has so many more scrums and penalties.

This is the key point. You either get to retain possession or not. There's no middle ground here. One leads to rugby league, passing, individual attack-defence confrontations, and limited stoppages for scrums/penalties, and the other leads to Union, forward-dominated play, early kicks for territory, plentiful stoppages, and very few passing plays.

I doubt league fans would watch the Union variety of the game for long - we'd find the speed of club rugby union much slower, and would rapidly get frustrated with seeing so little ball in hand. This is what prevents the codes from merging, in my view.

Yes, all that. Plus the fact that the ABs, for one, surely wouldn't have any interest in a combined code. England is not the centre of the rugby universe.

All that could change under a hybrid game, Union probably are on the way to losing 2 lock forwards if they are going to 13, this might mean a big impact of line outs, scrums and ruck play. In a hybrid game I can see the line out disappearing, keeping contested scrums and a faster ruck speed.