Short answer more players moved to Aus/Eng in the past.

The changing of the English RL season to summer has had more effect on player movements than the cap. Top players could easily move over to Eng/Aus for the off season months.

If RL was still a winter game clubs would save salary cap room for top Aussie players on short term deals. And when you consider the class of players that came across Kenny,Sterling, Menninga, Blake, Davidson,Vautin, O'Conner,Ettinghausen, Ella, Ferguson leaving room in the SC for a class short term signing would still happen when you consider the possible benefits of increased crowds and success in the league or cup.

Players moving to Aus were quite impressive as well Edwards, Gregory A, Gregory M, Ward, Hanley , Schofield, Lydon, Davies, Courrier, Hampson

You said "these things happened since the days of Stevo and Mal Reilly". I didn't make that up...

"These things", that's what you said, without any reference to the scale/frequency of the "things" being different (higher or lower), but simply "these things". If you thought "these things" were actually different in scale/frequency and it was important to you then you should have said so, if not then you can't criticise someone for drawing an obvious inference - that "these things" are broadly the same now as in the past (according to your argument of course).

You then repeatedly accuse me of "making things up" and then say I'm focusing on something you haven't said when you picked up the point (my entirely reasonable assumption) in the first place and then repeatedly refused to clarify what you meant even though you have a problem with my "making things up" about what you meant...



Your repeated jibes e.g. outing myself, old woman, making things up speak for themselves really..

To be fair it was because they took short terms contracts in our off season when it was winter and vice versa. So you cannot compare the 2

So because I said "these things" happened in the past you took that as me essentially saying "similar numbers" of players moved in the past and now?



If that's not a definition of making things up I don't know what is.

When I read your first paragraph I thought for a moment that the penny had dropped.

Then I saw that it hadn't...

Based on this thread, I know the penny will never drop with you so I'm not holding my breath.

Fair point, I'm not particularly concerned though about whether more or fewer players are going now than used to (I can't for the life of me work out why W/L Andy is so hung up on the issue especially since he won't express any view!

). I think we aren't likely to see a mass exodus to the NRL simply because we don't produce many players that they would want.

The issue is more the loss of one of the few real stars of the British game - players like Graham are very thin on the ground in British RL these days and if we lose many more of the small number of star players then the competition will be very mediocre here in SL.

Of course the alternative is for Superleague clubs to work so hard on bringing their home grown talent through the ranks that a very competitive Superleague is created, which is too attractive to leave.

In an ideal world....

Lets just pay the lads what they deserve eh?

That is the only way to keep hold of them. The financial gain is one thing, letting them know that they are appreciated and worth something is another.

Even the best players in RL will have to find a second career after they retire. What reward is that for putting your body though hell for the previous decade or so?

That's what I'd like to see. If all clubs developed players the way that our two clubs do then SL and international RL would be in far better shape. Unfortunately many clubs seem happy to let clubs like Wigan and Saints take the lead on this...

You're right, of course. We don't live in the ideal world, but leaving aside the financial questions for a moment SaintsFan is right that clubs (or at least some of them) need to do more to develop players.

I'm not hung up on the issue, I even said I didn't know how many. I merely pointed out you started making things up at to what I actually said, then you kept digging. I was happy to hand you a spade.

I kept digging? You raise an issue in quite inflammatory terms ("making things up"

), then when offered the opportunity repeatedly refuse to clarify what your views are (

), then finally admit you don't even know (





)! Sounds like sixth form debating tactics backfiring to me...

My views on what - how many players have been to Aus in the past? You do know the difference between something that is a view and something that is a matter of fact? I've said on more than one occasion I didn't know the numbers as I hadn't looked at the detail. But what I didn't say which you made up in that they were "similar numbers".

Jebus is it really that difficult for you to understand? The answer is obviously yes. If you have to use 8 smilies over a few lines to cover up your poor and incorrect argument I'd suggest 6th form debating skills are way beyond you.

Ok, so no happy smilies this time.



The amusing thing is that I have no motive for "making things up" since the point I've been making repeatedly is that the world class player pool in SL is so small that even one player like Graham will be sorely missed.

I've quoted exactly what you said on an earlier post. What you don't appear to get (unless you're simply being obtuse

) is that if you say "these things have always happened" then the conclusion would be that roughly the same numbers of players should be moving to Oz. That's all I was saying. If, for example, 20 British players signed this year to play in Australia would anyone say these things have always happened? No, of course not, because the scale of the exodus would make that expression sound ridiculous.

If you were so anxious not to be seen to have been expressing a view on whether the number of players moving was similar or not then you could quite easily have said that these things have always happened but you don't have a view/don't know whether they are happening more often now than in the past. But you didn't.

I drew a reasonable inference (which for some reason you think is wrong) from what you said, so what, what's the big deal? Yet you repeatedly accused me of "making things up" rather than simply putting the record straight. Pathetic.

I've put the record straight a number of occasions - you simply ignored it and continued to make some bizarre link between what I actually said and what you wanted/hoped/whatever you thought I said. Your problem, which you seem unable or unwilling to recognise or appreciate. I must have told you 4 or 5 times your made up assumption of what I said was wrong but you still won't let it go.

Nope. I offered you the opportunity to clarify your view of the numbers involved and it took you numerous occasions to do so, before you finally admitted you didn't know!

What I "won't let go" is your allegation that I "make things up". It is a perfectly reasonable reading of your choice of words (your words not mine) that the scale of the departures is not significantly bigger or smaller than it was before. I've given you a very clear example in my previous post of how a larger scale exodus this year would mean that "these things" hadn't "always happened". If you don't like it, express yourself more clearly next time or simply clarify what you meant in a later post. It's no big deal to do so; there's no need to accuse people of fabrication.

Your continued accusations of my making things up are ridiculous. You wrote things which, whatever you meant by them, clearly can be read the way I read them (and which I wasn't particularly attacking as a viewpoint anyway, which is what makes your attacks on me all the more bizarre!). You then decided to lambast me for "making things up" rather than just clarifying your position.....

I asked you before if you knew the different between a view and a fact - the answer is obviously no. I can't have a view on the numbers involved, it's a matter of fact. I've also already said about three times I don't know the numbers involved. There seems to be a bit of a recurring theme here of you not bothering to read what I written on numerous occasions when I've clarified something.

You seem to be in a minority of one to have decided that "these things have always happened" in relation to top players moving to Aus could in anyway be a judgement on the actual numbers. I'd imagine no matter how many people read that, you'd still be in a minority of one who would make up the same interpretation.

Yes, you [i[ueventually [/u[/isaid you didn't know the numbers involved.

Yes, I know the difference between a view and a fact. (Though I'm now worried we could get into a philosophical debate about whether there is such a thing as a objective "fact"; or indeed a scientific debate about whether due to quantum theory anything is knowable precisely. Given your track record of vitriolic objections to harmless and reasonable inferences I would be very reluctant to get involved in a discussion on those topics...!)

You don't appear to understand that what you mean when you write something may not be what other people quite reasonably think you mean. Language is not precise like mathematics, it is by definition open to interpretation.

I've given you an example of how your phrase "these things have always happened" would be totally inappropriate if you changed the numbers, but stick with your "minority of one" argument if it makes you feel better..

Given the number of times you've asked me for my "view" of the numbers involved it looks like my repeated clarification of what is a view and what is a fact has thankfully, finally hit home.

I also said some time ago I didn't know the facts on the numbers involved and have had to repeat it on a number of occasions - again it looks like my repeated clarification has thankfully, finally hit home.

Of course, I've never made any statement claiming to know them in the first place - you incorrectly claimed I did and haven't been able to get over the fact when pointed out.

Unfortunately it looks like you can't quite make the final leap of faith and want to continue your bizarre interpretation of what I said. I suppose 2 out of 3 is more than we could have hoped for in the circumstances.

ladies, please...

Tedious in the extreme.

I've had to explain to you how language works, I've given you an example that shows how reasonable my interpretation was (to which I note you haven't responded, because you can't without looking foolish) and even explained how I actually had no motive to make the fabrication you seem to think I made and are so het up about - which means that even if you were right, which of course you aren't, my innocent comment would not have deserved the ludicrous attacks directed at me by you on this thread (to which I have not responded in the same way).

You've added new issues like the difference between a view and fact, the relevance of which is unclear, in what appears to be an attempt to prolong an argument you have lost, having raised a point that you shouldn't have, in terms that you shouldn't have.

I won't be commenting any further on your ridiculous allegations on this thread because others are getting very bored by this (as am I).

At least that's something we can agree on. Perhaps you shouldn't have made things up in the first place eh.