[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/8446116/Brian-Kennedy-owner-of-Sale-rugby-union-club-fears-for-the-future-of-the-professional-game.htmlSee hear[/url. Only two clubs turning a profit, even with the massive advantage in terms of revenue that their international game gives them. It must all go on Pimms.

Spot on I fully agree!!

I was responding to Mugwump's post about the new war-chest that RU have supposedly unveiled in order to pillage our game of every decent youngster we have.

If that's true - and I've no reason to assume Mugwump was lying - then it's surely a big worry.

True, life does go on without these stars (let's not count Cunningham, because he retired - and that's different; we could just as well whinge pointelsssly that it's unfair we haven't got Hanley and Boston any more), but just think for a minute. If Eastmond hadn't been distracted by the RU offer, he'd probably now be on top of his game, one of the best halfbacks in the competition and a shoe-in for England. Imagine the Maguire effect on Chris Ashton if he'd stayed at Wigan. He was a pretty good player when he left. With his attitude adjusted, he'd probably be a much better player now.

That's two stars in the England line-up who we no longer have, even though they've both yet to reach their prime. These are genuine losses, even if we have no option but to carry on without them.

I don't understand how to some fans it can be good for the England team if players like Graham and Burgess go to Australia, but it isn't bad if ready-made international talent like Eastmond and Ashton leave the game altogether.

How does that work? And when are we ever going to see the fruits of this superb England team that we dream about (and send other top players to Australia in order to secure), if so many quality youngsters are allowed to defect to Union. Sure, we can celebrate skill and honesty of the good clubmen who'll be left behind, and enjoy evenly-matched games like we saw over Easter weekend, but these players aren't the ones who'll stick it to the Aussies.

Again though, I reiterate that I'm responding here to Mugwump's post about the new RU war-chest. If that turns out to be , there'll be no-one happier than me.

Another tv deal (champions league) has been done this week with no increase in revenue. its not looking good for a increase in tv rights.

The picture isn't entirely gloomy. You won't hear people that say everything's fine admit there are problems, let alone talk about the biggest issue which is the continuing story of financial underperformance and at times outright bankruptcy of SL clubs, but clearly there are some things that are better in RL now and I'm happy to talk about them. Stadia are much better on the whole, which is at least partly the reason for better attendances at some clubs and Catalans is a hugely significant development for the game.

In terms of the challenges facing professional RL they are however very real and shouldn't be ignored. Here are a few (in no particular order):

1. Low media profile of RL

2. Low media profile of RL players

3. Financial instability/insolvency of RL clubs

4. Poor financial performance and business planning by RL clubs

5. Falling real term wages for RL players

6. Poor international competition.

7. Losing players to other sports (or simply losing them from RL or them not being interested in the first place) because of 1, 2, 5 and 6.

Let's just take point 5 above. At the moment the SC is £1.6m for the first team squad of 25 players with a further £50k for players outside the top 25.

We have our friend from Warrington to thank for clarifying that the cap was reduced to £1.8m (with a dispensation for Wigan for 12 months of up to £2.3m because of existing contracts) with effect from the 2002 season, previously it was I believe a purely turnover based soft cap, but await further clarification from our friend from Warrington if I'm wrong on that

.

Since 2002 therefore the cap has actually reduced in absolute terms by £150k and in real terms has reduced even more than that.

We are told that the salary cap is all that the clubs can safely afford (if this is not true the cap is likely to void as a restraint of trade, so let's assume it is).

That means that the ability of RL clubs to pay player wages has decreased in real terms by over 30% in the last decade.

That literally can't go on. If we really can't raise the cap then the full time professional game has no long term future. It's just basic maths. For some reason none of the SC apologists want to address this.

They probably CBA discussing it with those who refer to them as "apologists" and the like, coupled with nonsense about "communist caps" and how its purpose is to drag Wigan down to everyone else's level (despite Wigan having made losses at the current cap level).

There is a simple truth that cannot be avoided - clubs lose money at the current cap level. Whilst EVERYONE would love RL to have more cash, it doesn't and won't until the international scene is sorted out.

But then the international game is treated with such alarming apathy, it's as if RL fans don't want the game to progress anyway. Those who scream the loudest about wanting the cap to be raised are probably the same people who won't travel 10 miles to watch England play.

If this is true I don't understand why SKY don't show a live Super League match on Friday Night, Saturday Night & Sunday Night every week?

So what you're saying is nothing can be done, so let's drift towards a semi-pro future?

At the end of the day, it's all about money, whether it's because a player has gone to union for a wage hike or because clubs can't afford to keep their stars because they've no youth system or they've paid a bunch of Aussie mercenaries. Then there's the salary cap and all its implications. The RFL fails miserably to market the game so there's little income from big-name sponsors which doesn't help.

I say good luck to Graham. He wants to try his hand at the strongest rugby comp in the world, in either code). Going to the NRL is usually nothing to do with money it's to do with players wanting a change of scene and to try and make it over there. Once you've won the Super League and Challenge Cup, what else is there to do? Our youngsters want to go over there and prove something. Let's face it, the Aussies don't want any or our older players do they? And, we've all seen the improvements in the likes of Ellis and Burgess and how it's helped Morley stay on the top of his game. If only some of our backs would go over there we might actually get somewhere on the international scene, because the coaching at a large number of clubs in SL is just not good enough.

Of course i don't want a drain of all our talent over there but as long as there's a balance kept then i don't really mind. It's up to the super league admin, clubs, players and supporters to all chip in and get us back up competing with Aus and NZ.

That's some pretty bizarre paragraphing but if it makes you feel better, you go for it pal.

Swap Farrell and Morley and that would be right. That was a very good International side in 2004 shame the Aussies where better!

So what are you saying then?

So we come back to the coaching question. I bet if you put Maguire/Brown in charge of that England team or the current one for that matter we'd have a great chance (with a fully fit squad to pick from). If we manage to give the Aussies a game with Stevie Mac in charge I'll go to Twickenham and watch a union game for the full 80 mins!!!

Brian Noble was the best English coach around at the time (2004) and I think we got to the Tri-Nations Final that year and got blown off the park by Australia in the first half. I really dont think any Australian coach could do much more than what Noble did that year with the possible exception of Wayne Bennett. I am sure that was the Final where Paul Sculthorpe played with 40 mins with a back spasm injury.

Steve McNamara should never ever have been anywhere near the England Head Coaching Role. Like you say I believe Michael Maguire, Nathan Brown, Daniel Anderson or numerous other coaches Down Under would have been a far better chioce than McNamara who has achieved nothing in his coaching career apart from dismantling the Bradford Bulls from a play-off side to a mediocre team. And why on earth does the position have to be Full Time???? If your good enough for the job and have the right credentials it shouldnt matter wheather its part time or full time.

back on topic, shame for RL, but I can't say i'm too disappointed



I fully encourage a weaker st helens team

That's the thing it's a great side from 1-13 and we had exciting kids at the time like Mcquire, Ellis, Burrow & Burrowb comming through.

The Aussies were indeed better but as NZ have showed you don't need to be better than OZ to smash and grab a win. I'll stick my head out and say that 2004 side would beat the current NZ side.

Why can't we produce a side these days which contains equal numbers of world class forwards AND backs?

We have had World Class forwards for years, Betts, Platt, Clarke, Morley, Farrell, Joynt, Sculthorpe, Peacock, Ellis the list is endless. As for the backs we have been struggling for years. Even when we had the backline of Radlinski, Robinson, Connolly, Newlove and Offiah/Sullivan we where overrun by Australia and the Kiwis. I am struggling to find a solution to this problem. Until we can find a World Class Full Back, 2 Wingers, 2 Centres, Stand Off and Scrum Half we will never compete. I doubt there is anyone around in Super League at this moment in time apart from Tomkins who you could put in the World Class caterogy.

Who is to say it will be weaker? Are we weaker without Keiron Cunningham as our hooker? Were we weaker on Friday with Gary Wheeler as our stand off and a stand off (Jonny Lomax) as our scrum half instead of Leon Pryce and Kyle Eastmond? No, on all counts. We will not find another prop forward with Jammer's passing ability or passion for Saints. Those two qualities will fly with him to Australia. But that doesn't mean we won't find another high quality player to fill his position until our young hopefuls are of an age where they can safely be put up front on the pitch in a redvee.

NZ don't have this tho? What they do have is Marshall however.

You are weaker without James Graham in your team. Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise

He is still in our team.

We can only see the team as we have it now. We have no idea what team we will have next season. I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. As I said, we won't get another prop forward who can pass like he can or who has the passion for Saints that he has. Those two qualities are irreplaceable. But whether we will end up having a weaker team as a result of him leaving will depend on what team we have next season.

I think this is a bit head-in-sandish.

I actually sympathise with Saints. They're losing a good player here, who won't be replaced easily. More to the point, he was a home-grown player. Much Saints cash and expertise will have gone into making him the player he is. But they'll only have had half the payback they were owed. Graham's best years could still lie ahead of him. Many props don't fully mature until they're about 28 / 29.

I accept that there's nothing you can do about it, and that it's better he's gone to the NRL than to Union. But it's not really better for St Helens. It's true - you may still be a top side again in the near future. But if you'd kept Graham, you'd be a top side AND would have one of the best props in Britain.

So long as we all keep saying "it doesn't matter, we'll develop someone else," or trot out that even less convincing bit of bravado, "he was no good anyway" (as has been applied to both Ashton and Eastmond) - then we're not facing up to the problem.

Do you honestly believe that?





Ofc players get replaced, that much is inevitable. What many on here are arguing is that they have been replaced by those of poorer quality.

I could make the point, that many have already, as to the reasons why the CC is fundamentally THE biggest cause of the slow quality drift out of RL in this country, but to what end? The arguments have been made before, and ignored before.

Suffice to say we are now in the position that many of us predicted a few years back. A game with very few stars, a game which penalises ambition and a game that is drifting out of the general awareness of the public and into a semi-pro future.

I for one will get no pleasure at all from saying "I told you so" in another 10 years.

If a strong St Helens means we get to see more battles like Good Friday keep them strong I say!

Total entertainment.

How so? I am acknowledging the irreplaceable aspects of Graham - his ability with the pass, his fire for the team, not to mention his durability - but I am also arguing that we need not be weaker for him not being there. We will miss his ball play, we will miss his character. But we may fill his position with someone who will complement whatever our team looks like next season and create an equally strong team, just a different one.