Look at the England team of a few years back

Radders
Carney
Gleeson
Senior
Can't think of the other winger
Pryce
Long
Faz
Newton/KFC
Fielden
Morley
Peacock
Scully

That's a world class team from FB to LF with proven class like Carney, Morley, Faz and Scully.

That, IMO, is the strongest we've been in decades. Shame Noble ruined it.

The best always gravitate to the best, which is why Graham is going to the NRL. Some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects on the usual topics completely misses the point (as per usual).

I wouldn't be surprised if Graham was going for less than Saints offered (apparently the most we've ever offered any player).

He wants to play in the NRL, just like footballers want to play in the Champions League. Amazingly, he would also rather live in Sydney than St Helens, hard as it may be to believe.

None of them... the SC came in long before 2000....

Though now you mention it, if we had paid 2.3m in 2000 then in real terms (assuming 4% wage inflation), that 2.3m would be worth less than 1.6m in today's money anyway....

You must try harder...

I think you are probably right about the life experience thing. Pat Richards came here for the same reasons as did the Hoff. Richards could have easily stayed in the NRL but is on record as having said the game was giving him a chance to travel while young so he came over having completed his contract with his NRL club. If Graham is outr of contract then its up to him to decide what to do and I can't blame him for going to sample a new lifestyle.

However that doesn't mean its good for our game and it doesn't mean the game is able to shrug off the loss of such players and this is why I disagree with what you say below.



It is still here but IMO it is now perceived as a much less major sport as it was and what seems to be developing into a slow but steady drain of talent (why-ever they choose to leave) does not help this. We used to have players in the game like Davies, Gibbs, Sculthorpe, Farrell and Offiah that were nationally well known names. I doubt Jamie Peacock registers in the minds of anyone outside the sport when his name is mentioned. So yes the game is still here but it's not very healthy IMO.



Those two being offered similar money to what they are getting elsewhere may be true but I think it's a bit naive to think with the disparate salary caps in operation between Sl, NRL and RU that SL won't be losing players for pure cash reasons. Eastmond might be on the same wage as he was at Saints but his earning potential is far greater in RU as things like endorsements are available to him there which are precluded in RL.

The other problem is how many talented players never actually get to first team level in RL. Thornley from here never made the first team before Sale came in for him and how many kids despite being life long Wigan fans or whatever will go to other sports if the cash on offer in RL continues to be eroded by inflation the way it is right now with a salary cap that has not increased for several years?



Then you can't continue to have RL as a professional sport. It's a job to the players as much as if not more than a passion. It was inevitable the day the game went pro wages would escalate. You can't keep wages down and expect to keep the standard of athlete who plays the game up. As RU has gone pro and as the NRL has continued to thrive wages in those two have increased. That is inevitable and will happen in any pro sport. Paying RL players more money won't turn them into the sport brats soccer players are. There is only room for one sport paying the utterly stupid wages they dish out. We should not be scared of playing players more money and should in fact be looking of ways to do so but RL's problem as Cruncher said is there is not enough money in the game.

That being so we could start by letting players benefit from endorsing products. At the moment any income like that counts on the salary cap. In the past I am sure high profile players like Andy Farrell and Paul Shorpe could have made quite a bit extra without it costing the club a penny. I am sure Sculthorpe was used by Gillette when they sponsored a test series. Gillette will have got what they wanted from Sculthorpe advertising their product but Scuthorpe won't have had a penny compared to what Beckham would get for doing the exact same think in soccer.

Trouble is I don't think we have any players who have the national profile of Farrell, Davies, Sculthorpe or Offiah playing the game at the moment anyone like Gillette would be interested in such is the current low standing of the game - still here as you say but its just not high profile enough.

Kind of glad he has gone, he will become a better player. Its far better than our players getting tapped up by union.

And some people fail to see the point, as usual.

Quote ="Deano G"None of them... the SC came in long before 2000.... Though now you mention it, if we had paid 2.3m in 2000 then in real terms (assuming 4% wage inflation), that 2.3m would be worth less than 1.6m in today's money anyway.... You must try harder... '" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_VII Quote The Cap for money spent on players' salaries was set at £1.8 million per club from the 2002 season.[2 The previous limit had allowed the clubs to spend either £0.75 million per year or a higher amount as long as it was no more than 50% of the clubs "salary cap relevant income".[2 The Cap change allowed some clubs in Super League to spend more money on players than they had previously but forced a reduction in spending at others. Wigan Warriors were given 12 months' dispensation to spend up to £2.3 million due to existing contract commitments.[3 '" www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -fans.html Quote Although Wigan were given special dispensation for a salary cap of £2.3million - despite other Super League clubs being bound to £1.8m '" yeah, didn't happen. you need to calm down it was a question, not a dig, i was sure it had happened at some point, just not when.

Quote ="Deano G"None of them... the SC came in long before 2000.... Though now you mention it, if we had paid 2.3m in 2000 then in real terms (assuming 4% wage inflation), that 2.3m would be worth less than 1.6m in today's money anyway.... You must try harder... '" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_VII Quote The Cap for money spent on players' salaries was set at £1.8 million per club from the 2002 season.[2 The previous limit had allowed the clubs to spend either £0.75 million per year or a higher amount as long as it was no more than 50% of the clubs "salary cap relevant income".[2 The Cap change allowed some clubs in Super League to spend more money on players than they had previously but forced a reduction in spending at others. Wigan Warriors were given 12 months' dispensation to spend up to £2.3 million due to existing contract commitments.[3 '" www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -fans.html Quote Although Wigan were given special dispensation for a salary cap of £2.3million - despite other Super League clubs being bound to £1.8m '" yeah, didn't happen. you need to calm down it was a question, not a dig, i was sure it had happened at some point, just not when.

Just think he could be the first player out injured with sunburn

Self-selection works it's usual magic.

Here a few names for you to consider:

Phil Clarke
Dennis Betts
Andy Platt

It's very dangerous for the flat-earthers to be raising international results. We all know that if you go back to the late 80's and early 90's then what you find is that in the pre-SC era Great Britain were much more competitive than the England side is today...

But let's assume that things have stagnated, rather than gone backwards. Are people defending the status quo saying that is good enough? Are they really suggesting that stagnation is ok in a world where other sports are growing and innovating? Is that what these people want?

Quote ="Fantastic Mr Cat"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_VII www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -fans.html yeah, didn't happen. you need to calm down it was a question, not a dig, i was sure it had happened at some point, just not when.'" I'm perfectly calm. As I said, inflation means the 2.3m is actually lower than the current cap in real terms so I don't understand where you were going with this in any case (unless you have seen the light and are arguing for allowing sustainable increases in spending ). The inflationary erosion of the SC seems not to be understood (or more probably is being deliberately ignored) by SC supporters. Interestingly in the Daily Mail article you cite it refers to the Club Great Britain concept, which was designed to help keep star players in the game..... but has since been abandoned....

Quote ="Fantastic Mr Cat"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_VII www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -fans.html yeah, didn't happen. you need to calm down it was a question, not a dig, i was sure it had happened at some point, just not when.'" I'm perfectly calm. As I said, inflation means the 2.3m is actually lower than the current cap in real terms so I don't understand where you were going with this in any case (unless you have seen the light and are arguing for allowing sustainable increases in spending ). The inflationary erosion of the SC seems not to be understood (or more probably is being deliberately ignored) by SC supporters. Interestingly in the Daily Mail article you cite it refers to the Club Great Britain concept, which was designed to help keep star players in the game..... but has since been abandoned....

I hadn't heard about this before, but if it's true, it really should have run the alarm bells at Red Hall.

The very least we need is some kind of 'Club GB' set-up where our marquee players - and we all know who they are - can receive extra wages for staying loyal to the British game.

I know that chucking money at players isn't the answer to everything, but if the Union plan is to have a central war-chest with which to lure our best talent (which presumably doesn't count on anyone's salary cap), then we at least have to have something similar with which to try to keep them.

It's also got to be worth considering that some clubs may be able to offer better contracts to their star players if only they were allowed to. Are we to continue emsculating our wealthier outfits in this way just because their existence is unfair on the others?

And the point that's being missed is that the game in those days could cope with star players going abroad... because there was a larger pool of British world class players...

And of course there were also genuinely world class overseas players playing in England in those days too...

i asked a straight forward question, was the 2000 or 2002 teams which you were putting forward, the team/squad in question that you were we're spending 2.3 mill on.

you said, no, it never happened,

the correct answer was.

yes, the 2002 team.

And the point being that even then the game in Aus was lightyears ahead at both domestic and international level - hence my point that the best will always gravitate to the best to test themselves. Salary cap or not.

Didn't most if not all of them go when the ARL/NRL war was resolved? I thought some went with Monie so I don't think them going was just them going because they decided to go to a better competition. There were some specific circumstances at the time like the formation of the Auckland Warriors that sent Aussie clubs on a recruitment drive for players like those above and also Robinson and Connolly (who were offered cash to stay here and did) like we have never seen before or since.

and the point of your question was?

A little bird with a relative on Saints first team told me on Friday that Jamie Foster has already been tapped up by two yawnion teams and he also reckoned Eastmond will be back in SL inside 2 years as wolves player - I wonder how many of our younger stars are also being tapped?

Dave, don't try and muddy the waters with facts and common sense.



Not when the pro-SC flat earthers continue to miss the point and to ask random questions in an attempt to deflect the argument away from the dismal present day reality and even gloomier future (unless you like the idea of semi-pro RL....)

I know people like to be all doom and gloom about "when sky pull their money out", but, given we often quote Superleague's impressive veiwing figures compared to other sports, surely Sky will not want the best players leaving one of their well watched sports in droves to play NRL (which isn't on sky) or club RU (which is watched by less than SL). Will this impact the next renegotiation with sky, or have the latest talks finished?

Only if you think that paying to watch a sub-standard and ever worsening competition over here is 'good news'. Mind you, as a Latics supporter, I'm sure that's to be expected.

There are times when I think that yet again Sky are our only hope.

The problem though, is that - as far as I'm aware - Sky have no rival bidders for RL. In that respect, I see no reason why Sky would agree to increase their cash injection.

Would they care enough about the game to give us extra money purely to save some of our top names? I can't see that. As far as they're concerned we'll all still pile into the pub on Friday night to watch the game, because what other choice do we have?

I just wish that for once someone - maybe one of those club official who reportedly peruse these boards - would come on and give us reasons why we don't need to worry, but it never seems to happen. Even those who routinely trot out the "it's okay, we'll just produce more players" response don't sound as if they believe that's a solution any more.

But if they want to keep their strangle hold on sport, then they need to maintain high standards in the veiwing products they offer. If the best SL players are wandering off for NRL contracts, then the product standard and the interest are going to go on the slide.

I don't know the exact figures, but people seem to imply that RL is second to football, but beats other weekly sports fixtures for veiwing figures. If this is true, then we should hold a decent bargaining stance, if the RFL have anything about them.

Its all well and good saying they've no reason to increase the money they put in, but they had no reason to when SL launched, but they did, and they;ve done very well out of it. After all, a substantial increase in money per club would be a drop in the ocean compare to the amount they'll pay for football and their budget overall.

Are things really all that bad?

Players DO get replaced. A few months ago Cunningham was irreplaceable, now he's already basically forgotten in Roby's slipstream.

Then Eastmond was irreplaceable . . . until the very next month when Lomax got scrum half of the month and has played out of his skin ever since.

This time it's Graham, but guess what? Life and RL goes on.

I don't know about you, but I had a great time over the weekend and the fact that Kyle Eastmond / Chris Ashton / Iain Thornley weren't playing at a RL ground mattered not one jot to me, the full house at Wigan or anybody elsewhere.

We are approaching a time where we will have a lot of new stadiums in SL with the ability to attract the corporate pound. Crowds are on the up in a lot of places. The TV contract is up for renewal on the back of great viewing figures. We have a pre-planned international calendar for the first time I can remember, with the RFL trying to get some meaningful warm ups in the shape of the Exiles game. Catalans are performing well and building themselves a cracking little ground in the process.

Lets not forget that it was only last week that the Sale owner was shouting about how unsustainable RU is and how only two clubs can make the numbers work, with the rest losing fortunes, yet people would have you believe theirs is the only way forward and that they're about to swallow up RL in a sea of fifty pound notes and profits.

I'm not entirely sure where all the doom and gloom comes from, and even more baffled as to why people think it was better in the old days. My memory might not be what it was, but RL was all but dead on it's a*se in these good old days; it's as healthy as it's ever been in recent history both here and in Australia.