Ashton was on 8K when he first played on the first team, this was upped to 11k, A big difference to the 200k Farrell was on when he left us to go to union, okay Faz gave his all for Wigan, but he was well rewarded for doing so. Ashton became big headed after all the hype about him, but he had watched Wigan from being a young toddler, who could blame him if it went to his head when he realized he was playing for the team he idolized and thought to be the best thing since sliced bread. He was young and imature and the money he was offered was too good to turn down, We should be pleased for him knowing that Wigan has made him in to the player he is and know that we can be proud of bringing another player into the limelight.

That's not true. They stepped in with top-up payments to both Rads and Cunningham to ensure they stayed in league, successfully. They can only go so far however. Offering to pay Chris Ashton more than the £40,000 difference in salary to keep him in rugby league would have been a foolish precedent to set. The figures involved in Robinson, Paul, and Faz's cases I imagine would have been much higher.


I'm sure they're intelligent enough to investigate each potential signing on their own merits. Just assuming that because a player has a RL up-bringing that they would have the same abilities or potential as another player brought up in RL would be very naive, particularly considering some of the "less than successful" code transfers. I'm also sure that they are constantly looking at potential players, and don't need a reminder to go and have another look.

It is up to the RFL to ensure that the number of code transfers is limited to a level where it does not have a significant impact on the supply of new talent to our game. This they can only do by minor adjustment of the terms of the salary cap, and marketing of the game to improve players public profile. They cannot stop it altogether without declaring open-season on salaries, and that would be far more destabilising for the game.

What do you mean by 'marketing of the game to improve players public profile?'

I think I know what it means, but I reckon it's easier said than done.

If what we're talking about here is trying to boost the game's profile in comparison to RU, which, despite being a poorer product than RL, is still the darling of the establishment and the national press, and as a result enjoys an international profile, which, thought it may leave us baffled, is now on a global scale, I think we're on a hiding to nothing.

Let's be honest, there's no way we will [uever[/u be in a position in GB where we can say: "Come to us, lads - even if you get picked for England RU, you'll never enjoy the profile (and the spin-off benefits) that players in RL now get".

For me, the only thing we can really do to weigh the dice in our favour is introduce modifications to the Cap, such as discounting juniors or ex-Academy players from it, so that we can concentrate all our capped resources on keeping the big name stars in the game. Despite the best efforts of many Saints and Leeds fans, I've yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why that would be a bad idea.

I thought that the OP may have been thinking about endorsements for players at clubs that do not count on the salary cap like in the NRL. Those image rights give them uncapped earning potential and could sway in RL's favour.

However, this is easier said than done. Firstly a large corporation would have to be involved to offer the right kind of money and publicity a player seeks, companies like Frontline bathrooms and GPW Recruitment just don't sound appealing whatever money they might offer.

Secondly, even if players did get a decent profile through endorsements or whatever means necessary it will probably be a club initiative rather than an RFL initiative so players will be more likely to play for team X because they can earn more their with their contacts rather than teams Y & Z.

Just to confirm for the record that according to official statistics Rugby League is the second most popular team sport in the UK after football. This is judged using the measure of the number of fans who go through the turnstiles at games over the season in domestic league competitions. Based on this Football is way ahead with over 25 million strolling through the gates. League is second with 1.64 million taking the time to have a pie and watch a game and Union is third with 1.48 million people daft enough to watch blokes have an extended cuddle, lift each other up like a chorus line and kick the ball to the fans. If anyone is interested Cricket is a distant fourth with 888,000.

Based on last full year of statistics available.

I do have a life........honest!!!

Ben Foden would be a world class full back in league IMO

Well played Chris. Bombed his big one chance (literally). Just kicked too early. Inexperience apparently. I'd suggest club experience would give him the know how of when to kick in that situation but hey ho...

He just panicked. But, well done Chris!

Always nice to see a Wiganer play on the world stage.


He did take the wrong option on that kick though.

Glad he lasted the 80 mins.

It was inexperience and a shame he couldn't capitalise on it. I watched this game purely to see Ashton play. Apart from the spectacle of the occasion, and a couple of big tackles the rest of the game was hugely boring. I just don't get it. Nothing happens. I know that exposure of the union game is massive and so it's going to draw large crowds but why oh why would anyone want to spend their hard earned money and precious free time watching that???

It's so frustrating. I honestly feel if you sat down a load of union, league and neutral fans and made them watch the full 80 mins of both a top flight league and union game they would come away saying that league is much more interesting.

Definately lived up to its name - Rugby Yaaawnion.

So the the question is, why on earth did you sit through it?

i did and i dont no why

I did not watch the game, but it was perfect for a saturday night. Mindless crap for the masses...

Have you ever watched a movie that was so bad you cant stop watching it

Invictus.

I sat through it to see the best back in England taken off, which lost them the game, and to see the effect union has had on Ashton who would have score that try in his sleep were he at Wigan 4 years ago.

You reap what you sow, a negative game produces negative plays.

I due to friendship genuinely wanted an England win, but when you see them kick possession away in the opposition 30 its not hard to understand why they lost that game despite them moaning about the ref.

It was a strange one taking Tindell off..i thought him and Ashton were starting to gel well and could have given the french some trouble that last 15 mins.

i wanted england to win and always will because i'm a proud english man..no matter the sport

Yeah it baffles me that they brought Tindall off. He was one of the only players making proper ground. England were on a roll and were building attacking play that was fairly interesting to watch, hhhmm

english rugby union is a shambles. Martin Johnson has no coaching experience ever. fantastic player in his day but how can the national coach have no coaching experience. Its a joke. Its like putting Kelvin Skerritt in charge of england

Would agree with most of that - England played better this week but you bet Borthwick will be back providing he's fit for the Autumn Internationals.

I didnt.

I put it on for a bit, lost interest, did other stuff, then tried again.

HTH.

From the Telegraph:
Chris Ashton
A fine debut. Had a rush of blood once or twice but never overawed by the opposition or the occasion. 7

From RugbyRugby.com
Chris Ashton:
Looked good in the starting side and showed that he might develop into a dangerous attacking force on the wing at international level. Had one great opportunity to score where his chip kick was put in too early and might have backed himself better in his one-on-one with Clement Poitrenaud.
7/10