I disagree with the Eastmond comment I think he will be back in RL before his RU contract ends because he is injury prone and unproven but still he could potentially be a great half back and he may end up being a loss but I dont see that at the minute. But thats not important whats important is that we are losing too many.

Their TV deal is about to be renegotiated apparently too so they are probably going to get an even higher cap so theyre going to take everyone they want from SL if that happens, beats Union taking them though.

When a new sponsor is negotiated by the RFL they need to make sure its highly lucrative for all teams and play the "advertising every week on SKY and BBC" card and I think when our TV deal is up they really need to shove down the throat of Sky that the only sport on Sky Sports that more people view is Football. This includes all the masters golf and tennis now if that isnt enough to get us more money then they should threaten to negotiate with ESPN for them to take some games for example Sunday games (or just do that anyway for more money on top of Sky!)

It shows how much better the RFL could do things that people on here are consistently pointing out improvements that, for the most part, are quit feasable.

Will impress in the NRL thats for sure

The salary cap needs to change though, its ridiculous to suggest that this sort of thing makes the SL stronger.

Posted this in the rumours thread yesterday:


You can now change best two forwards to best three forwards.

I cannot think of a single reason why any person would believe that individual sponsorships negotiated by players and their agents should count on the salary cap. It's nothing more than a blatant restraint of trade.

It's not as if it's a drain on the game's resources.

The only thing I can assume is that yet again it's about that 'fairness' thing. In other words, players at so-called glamour clubs, who are more likely to get sponsored cars or be asked to do local ads, will have an unfair advantage over players at so-called non-glamour clubs.

And for this reason, and others like it, we are losing the services of players like James Graham. Great. Another colossal own-goal.

I firmly believe Graham is going for the life experience rather than for the money. A few extra quid wouldn't have convinced him to stay in St Helens - he wants to live in the sunshine and have a new life experience and I wish him luck with it. I think that's a pretty common theme across all the players who have gone out there.

I agree to an extent about the harmful effect of losing our marquee players, but I'm not convinced that throwing money at our top players is the answer. In truth, quality players have left Super League before but the competition is still here. There are hundreds of young kids in towns like St Helens and Wigan who are bred on rugby league and would do anything to play for their club, and when one leaves, another takes his place. The clubs, the fanbase and the competition are bigger than the names of the players who are leaving. As long as clubs like Wigan and Saints are continuing to develop youngsters with the exceptional systems both clubs have in place, there will always be someone else to step into the breach. We have excellent coaches from the local amateur clubs through to Service Area and club academies, and I'm confident the stream of quality youngsters is going to continue. Yes it harms the competition to lose top players but simply put you can't legislate to stop a pro athlete wanting a new challenge or a new life experience. By all accounts Eastmond was offered the same money by Saints as he was offered by RU, and Graham was offered one of the best deals in the clubs history.

I'd hate to see us go down the route football has gone down, where the players are more important, and bigger, than the clubs and even the game itself. I applaud RL for continuing to live within its means and spend responsibly. You can go and watch SL and know that the players are playing the sport for all the right reasons and have a genuine connection with the club. Believe me as an Everton season-ticket holder that it isn't always like that in other sports!

What is the point of keeping developing players if you never get the long-term benefit of them?

How long before those few clubs who do develop players start to cut back?

You won't keep all those players who want their day in the sun, but you might be able to keep some of them if you at least try. I've said it before and I'll say it again, doing NOTHING is not an option.

It's not often I find myself in agreement with Saints fans (though they do talk a lot more sense that Wolfs to be fair, but that's not exactly difficult

), but they are right that this is not good for SL.

There's a bigger issue here, which is that the SL competition is in serious danger of losing credibility. The Soopah Doopah League has been going backwards for the last 10 years (does anyone seriously think our current side - which is rightly favourites with the bookies to win SL - is as good as the one with Farrell, Lam, Craig Smith, Radders, Dallas etc? That side wasn't the best SL side at the time!).

We now have VERY few world class players in the whole of SL.

Wigan have 3 - Paat, Sam and the Hoff
Saints had 2 - Eastmond and Graham and have Puletua (who I rate)
Who do the likes of Leeds and Wire have?
Do any sides outside the big 4 have even one world class player?

No doubt the SC propagandists and flat earthers will tell us that just because Huddersfield are doing well and Wigan, Saints and Wire have dropped points this season all is rosy in the SL garden. It isn't.

We want the best players in [ithis[/i competition to make it more appealing and better quality in itself. The idea our game here will benefit in any way at all from those three spending the best years of their careers in the NRL is completely bonkers.

Look at it like this. Do players over here benefit form having to deal with the likes of Hoffman? I say they do and clubs needs to combat him with a better standard of player. So when he goes home next year and they dion't what do you expect to happen? The answer is obvious, the players in SL won't have to be as good or try as hard when playing us - as we won't when playing Saints minus Graham.

Players in SL benefit from facing quality players like Hoffman and Graham. They will both be gone next year and our leage will be the worse for it not better.

There may be a production line, but Bentleys and Aston Martins aren't rolling off it... Saints have no one as good as Graham to step into his shoes, just as Wigan would have no one with the potential to do what Sam does if he left. We just aren't producing enough stars at the moment, if the few genuinely gifted players we have leave then we might as well give up and go back to semi-pro/amateur RL. That's the way the game's heading, so let's face up to it.

Thanks to Dave)for reminding me of the Hoff, he is a world class player. I think Lockers is borderline world class, a much underated player. There may be one or two others in Saints team to be fair (Puletua springs to mind, so I've edited the post above), though the point remains that genuinely world class players are few and far between in SL these days. The derby on Good Friday was a great match from an entertainment prespective but was it really high quality? Wigan, Saints and Wire are the best sides currently but they aren't great and it's not as if players of real quality are found in numbers in the smaller clubs. We are on the way to creating a level playing field but I'm afraid that we are heading to a level playing field of mediocrity at best...

Yea I believe this is more of the case also. After watching Super Leagues Supermen with Burgess and Ellis, I'll probobly criticise Graham for not going sooner.

As for the SC, if it's not going to be raised, I still think the best way is to not count home grown players on it, or as much, say 50% of their wages.

Yes. I think the current side would beat that one.

You have got this the wrong way around. The customer is always right so if the RFL come up with events that are poorly attended such as Millenium Magic and the Exciles game then they are at fault not the customer.

It means the RFL are coming up with the wrong events or at the very least not managing them properly such as not having a week off normal fixtures to play the Exiles game.

I think i can hear BK on his way...

The lifestyle issue is certainly a big problem where players defecting to Aus is concerned.

All the money in the world didn't keep Phil Clark and Denis Betts in Wigan when the Aussies came to call.

But you can still combat it to some degree by making it worth those players' while to come back here - say two years down the line, when our game could genuinely benefit from their NRL experience. Okay, not all will come back. But if you don't at least try, you don't get.

The other thing is there's no lifestyle issue with players defecting to RU clubs like Sale. Quite the opposite I'd have thought, given the run-down state of their ground. Okay, RU has the interntional dimension, but that's not the story across the board. I was told by separate people at Wigan that both Jason Robinson and Chris Ashton went for the money. When Kris Radlinski and Keiron Cunningham were offered the 'RU international dimension' as a lure, it didn't work because Club GB were able to give them what they really wanted - a bit more cash.

i honestly think Graham wants the chance at the NRL for the experience, the money is simply a bonus. he would have gone either way over the next few years if no one had of come in for him now. fair play to him and good luck to him too.

i certainly don't think of him as a turncoat or money grabber like some players from SL have been in the past.

i also don't think that in the same vein, we can call players for crossing codes or moving to oz etc for the money, as let's face it, if you are happy in your job then someone offers you the same job for more money in a better part of the world - you'd have to consider it wouldn't you.

Interesting.

Let's take the 2002 CC final team - which started, as we all know (and enjoy remembering) as massive underdogs:

Radlinski

Dallas Johnson Connolly Ainscough

O'Neill Lam

O'Connor Newton C.Smith Cassidy Furner Farrelll

Subs M.Smith Carney Hodgson Bibey

A couple of weak links (Bibey?

) I grant you, but there are some genuinely world class players there - Radders, Dallas, Connolly, Lam, Newton, Craig Smith and Farrell as well as very good players like O'Connor, Furner and Cassidy. What does it say about SL today that a side as good as that could be massive underdogs to Saints?

The picture is even clearer though if you go back a couple of years.

Here's the team that played in the first game of the 2001 season (we finished level on points with Bratfurt, who topped the table and who, to be fair, had the best side) as an example of what we could put out 10 years ago:

Radlinski

Dallas Connolly Renouf Johnson

Johns Lam

O'Connor Newton Cowie Betts Furner Farrelll

Subs Davies Haughton Cassidy Howard

Looks a good side to me!! Johns and Davies weren't great, to be fair, but the 3/4s are a lot better than the current 3/4 line on the whole and the pack is very strong indeed.

Here's what is arguably an even better side we put out the previous year in 2000 (when, to be fair, we topped the table but only by 3 points over Saints, who beat us in the GF):

Radlinski

Dallas Connolly Renouf Robinson

T.Smith Peters

O'Connor Newton Cowie Cassidy Betts Farrelll

Subs Jones Gilmour Haughton Mestrov

Now THAT's a three quarter line! The half backs are good and that is a very, very powerful pack.

I defy anyone to tell me the game hasn't gone backwards...

BK, where are you?

the game hasn't gone backwards IMO. its evolving in its own ways. players are leaner, stronger, and fitter these days on the whole and the youth game has come on leaps and bounds.

so although you can argue on some elements where the game has gone backwards, i feel thats simply in order for it to grow in the way it has. lets not forget, the whole SL concept is only about 15 years old!

Quote ="Deano G"Here's what is arguably an even better side we put out the previous year in 2000 (when, to be fair, we topped the table but only by 3 points over Saints, who beat us in the GF): Radlinski Dallas Connolly Renouf Robinson T.Smith Peters O'Connor Newton Cowie Cassidy Betts Farrelll Subs Jones Gilmour Haughton Mestrov Now THAT's a three quarter line! The half backs are good and that is a very, very powerful pack. I defy anyone to tell me the game hasn't gone backwards...'" True, English RL was AMAZING in 2000 . . . . news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 029891.stm

Quote ="Deano G"Here's what is arguably an even better side we put out the previous year in 2000 (when, to be fair, we topped the table but only by 3 points over Saints, who beat us in the GF): Radlinski Dallas Connolly Renouf Robinson T.Smith Peters O'Connor Newton Cowie Cassidy Betts Farrelll Subs Jones Gilmour Haughton Mestrov Now THAT's a three quarter line! The half backs are good and that is a very, very powerful pack. I defy anyone to tell me the game hasn't gone backwards...'" True, English RL was AMAZING in 2000 . . . . news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 029891.stm

Quote ="FearTheVee"True, English RL was AMAZING in 2000 . . . . news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 029891.stm'" That score would probably show stagnation rather than going backwards.

Quote ="FearTheVee"True, English RL was AMAZING in 2000 . . . . news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 029891.stm'" That score would probably show stagnation rather than going backwards.

Losing players to the NRL is a concern. But we can at least partially console ourselves if they play well for England (not that we are likely to produce enough players to be hooked by the NRL to make a difference).

The real issue is Union. Last week the ERU performance coach announced a substantially increased war chest (up by 400%) solely for the acquisition of exceptional (and young) SL talent. Which means an exodus is on the cards very soon.

How we prevent this I'm not sure. The only suggestion I can come up with is adjusting the rules to take us further away from Union thus making a successful transition harder. Not ideal, but what else can we do? We can't match them financially.

which one of them squads were you paying the 2.3 million to when the salary cap came in?

McManus said that Saints had offered Graham the best deal they had ever offered any player. It was never about money for Graham. It was about a lifetime ambition to play in the NRL. But he has made it consistently clear that it was a difficult decision for him to make because he enjoys being at Saints. Saints have said that the door is open to him should he ever want to come back but I don't expect him to return at all. I'm gutted he is going and I think it is a falicy that playing in the NRL will make a player a better player. If a player is a great player, as James Graham is, he will be great regardless of where he is playing. But he has won everything there is to win over here and if he doesn't go now, at 25, it will be too late for him. I can't blame him deciding as he has but it's a shame he has chosen to go.

Glad Roby felt differently and is happiest at home with his family and playing for his local club.

I think Graham is a complete exception to the things stated in most of this thread.

Graham is going for the experience. He will come back to St Helens when his contract ends and he's had his fun and he will retire a Saints legend. That I'm sure of. It is definitely not a money thing he would have gone for less than Saints offered he wants to go to Australia.