Not really true as far as I can see in the near future.
[urlhttp://www.theroar.com.au/2011/06/20/nrl-expansion-plans-on-hold-until-2015/[/url

Even if they go to 18 teams in 2015, that doesn't represent a massive increase in demand or influx of UK players when the best of southern hemisphere yawnion talent will be on the NRL doorstep and ripe for picking.
The point is; if they don't want our most of our decent players now; why would they want them when they have stacks of money and only two extra teams' squads at most to fill up?

All it really means is that we will get an even inferior quality of second rate aussies over here.
If our coaches have enough sense (debatable), they should see the opportunity to develop and use home grown talent instead of relying on inferior quality imports.

God, I'm sounding like Gary Schofield now - shoot me!

If they have money to spend (and it's looking increasingly likely they will have, the best NRL teams would be foolish to not have a scouting network that includes the north of England. Who knows where the NRL could go with this kind of money? It could start them on the path to being a NFL, MLB, Premiership of our game i.e. a true genuine global brand. Although it might mean we lose some players to the NRL the overall increase in exposure for the sport is potentially ludicrous.

That's League's business.



I think old age is beginning to affect your memory, mate. Don't you recall our conversation several months ago in which we discussed the current and likely future economic climate in relation to Rugby League? I distinctly recall you agreeing with me when I said League is likely to struggle given a) the seemingly endless depression affecting the North of England, b) Union's ever-increasing finances and c) the NRL's latest TV deal.

League is not in the ascendant. Our results against the best team in the world are an embarrassment. Crowds are not what they were and neither is SL's sponsorship. We are desperately short of talent and Union is about to embark on a massive spending programme. The guy interviewed on SKY wasn't talking about bringing one or two players to union a season. The emphasis was on [ibloc signings. [/i



Why use the NRL's windfall as a counterargument when it was conceded in the first place? We're talking BRITISH rugby here. Not the world game. And what good a cash-rich NRL will do SL I've no idea. Sure, we benefit at international level but what's the point if the game HERE has become a joke with washed-up, third-rate deadbeats being the star men at the top clubs?



Unfortunately, this "fortress" appears to be leaking our best talent. On the other hand THEIR fortress is like the home of King Croesus.



Yeah? How much are the season tickets?

I disagreed with you on the union bit, but said i expected the NRL to become a magnate for British RL players and potentially like the NBA in Basketball or NHL in ice Hockey. That doesnt mean league is dieing it means its growing.

Mugs you are talking British RL , i am looking at the bigger picture. Just as you cant look at RU without taking in their international game, so you cant take in the state of RL without looking at the NRL.

I also disagree about there being no point to the game if you are not watching superstars.
RL has never had genuine superstars in this country it has only ever had local heroes. As such to be a fan of RL you cant be someone hypnotised by glamour, because there is little hype and glamour in British RL. What attracts people to RL is the game itself, and the genuine feeling of community amongst its followers.
You see the same thing outside the realms of Premiership football. Tens of thousands of fans watch championship teams knowing those players are second rate, but they do so because they love their football and are passionate in following their local side.

In a war there are always casualties. We will lose a few good men along the way, but just as Britain stood firm against the Nazi Hordes so should RL stand firm against the Twickenham white shirts. For we know that across the Oceans a leviathan has awoken. Just as the USA turned the tide against Hitler, the Australian NRL will ensure that League wins the Rugby war.

Money talks in sport but we have the better more marketable game (for the masses), swings and roundabouts, they both survive side by side like they have done for years Union will always be bigger and League will always get it's plaudits from the occasional neutral. I'm not worried.

Exactly. To be honest I don't particularly care all that much for the NRL. It's not that I don't enjoy watching. It's just that it is too far away to be socially relevant. It's not like I can just nip down to Brisbane to take in a few games here and there. And the NRL can stand up for itself. It is not under any threat.



Of course you can. There are thousands of British SL (and lower league) fans who haven't watched a single NRL game and have no plans to do so - just as there are millions of football fans who haven't the foggiest idea who the Dutch champions are.



You're confusing stardom with ability. A "star" is a media construction. You can be a world class player whilst never being a "superstar". To be honest, I could quite easily live with no stars at all. But a game without talent is at an evolutionary dead end.



Martin Offiah was a superstar. So was Ellery Hanley. Paul Sculthorpe wasn't too far away either with his regular appearances in the media. But don't try and convince me that the game never had outstanding talent. It did. The problem we face to today is talent is being leeched away from the sport. And THAT is something I cannot simply pass off as insignificant.



Why do you keep talking about "glamour"? I never mentioned it.



Alex Murphy was "second rate"? Tommy Voll, Billy Boston, Ellery Hanley, Kevin Ward, John Woods, Tony Myler, Brian McTigue - all "second rate"? These are some of the very people who DEFINED the sport of Rugby League.



For heaven's sake quit with the cod-Churchillian nonsense. It might stir the passions but it doesn't alter the facts.

What are these facts that you refer to?

I actually quite liked the way it was put .....and nowt wrong with passion

The number of players Union will target is probably lower than most would think. Despite some moderate success with league players (who were deliberately fast-tracked into the England side) there have been a fair few failures as well - Chev Walker, Danny Williams and Lee Smith from Leeds for example. If we get our s kicked by Aus/NZ again this year, it's hard to imagine Union falling over themselves to sign up players.

I do not rate Josh Tomkins that highly, is he is above average player but that is all, can you blame anyone at his age if he is offered the "rumoured" big money, I would take it!

So many Super League players have tweeted this last few days that they would love that type of money and also the chance to play international rugby in front of packed crowds!

There is not sadly the money in our game currently to throw around to keep players, so many clubs are running at a loss, gate receipts do not cover wages neither do the local lotteries that RL clubs used to run successfully, the Euro and UK Lottery has taken a lot of that cash flow!

Woah!!!! Great classical reference there. Probably only three people understood it though.

ANd now a Hebrew biblical reference. It's like being at Oxford on 'ere.

I would suggest that a rich NRL will mean that the idea of swapping to union for the reward of England money will be less inticing.
For every Chris Aston there is a Chev Walker, a Karl Pryce and a Lee Smith. RU isn't a cake walk any more.

Personally, I think we'll see Eastmond rip it up at club level for Bath, but struggle to impact internationally, due to his size not being what the Union selectors are after. If he doesn't, then he wont be any better off than he would of if he'd have been playing for Saints, except he's wasted a year of his career when he could have been developing, he's also written off whatever chances he had of building towards a golden goose contract with a new cashed up NRL, playing a game that he 100% know he can succeed at.

That's how a rich NRL will benifit SL in its resisting Union.

You also forget the influence of the media. Superleague is a big draw for Sky veiwers, i reckon (if anyone has relevant stats, I'd liek to see them). They won't want a prime product of theirs suffering, just so Rugby Union can waste money on more failed poaching experiments or because the Aussie have more cash.

Rugby League is a great game and I'll watch it until the cows come home, even if a few players are poached.

But Kyle and Joel both know that they will earn so much more in the next three years than they could have in RL. Then if it doesn't work out for them they will still be in their mid twenties and able to come back to RL and still get good money if that is their desire.

Their overall earnings in say an eight year period will be significantly more if they go the RL to RU and then back to RL route.

The figures being banded about are enormous (£250K - £400K) pa is what has been reported.

Good luck to them, I wish they had both stayed in RL but with those sort of salaries available (and the much higher profile International Game) can you really blame them?

The Salary cap in Rugby union is £4million, which is higher than I expected. A rugby union club needs to maintain a squad of around 36 players compared to 26 in league. Our salary cap is £1.65 (?)
So, their average allocation per player is £111,000 per annum, compared to League's rather dissapointing £63,000 a year. That is disturbing.

However, [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/7829489.stmthis article[/url suggests a lot of union clubs aren't spending it and, when paired with articles like [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/apr/15/sale-reebok-stadiumthis[/url, it doesn't suggest the english union clubs are exactly flush enough to be throwing big money about.

Do we know the yearly figures that the Aviva Premiership and Engage Superleague receive from their Sky contract?

Stop presenting alternative viewpoints to hysteria. That kind of intellect isn't acceptable on apocalyptic RL message boards, you should know that. For heaven's sake don't post it on RedVee or it'll melt.

Dont like to make a habit of agreeing with pie-eaters but you got it spot on here...both Eastmond and Tomkins can go to RU, earn in 3 years what it would take them at least double that time to earn in RL, and if it doesnt work out can come back to RL and still be young enough to continue at to level for 8-10 seasons after

The cash in RU cannot be matched by RL and I fear if the RFL dont act soon we could lose a lot more of our young stars to the dark side

The English Rugby Union youth development is still flawed with many of the old pre professional barriers - either that or boarding schools produce the best rugby union players. A look down their youth International Teams reflect little change from 20 years ago with the exceptions of George Ford and Owen Farrell, who have made an impact in that game because of their natural rugby skills and maturity in terms of rugby craft. Chris Ashton just backs up - he times his run and has the in built instinct to anticipate where to be when / if a break is made - something 10 year olds are expected to do at Thatto Heath, Pilkington Recs, St Judes or St Pats. Unions biggest issue is that Rugby League exists. They cant / wont improve that terrible game out of fear it may be perceived as becoming "like league" but it wont stop the fools wanting a back line that includes Ford, Farrell, Tomkins, Tomkins and Ashton - Tuilagi and Foden might get a look in. The sad thing is not so much the loss of good players to Union, it is the missed opportunity to see these guys at their best on a stage where they will get the ball more than once or twice a game and the space to show what they can do - which is precisely what used to happen when the Union lads came to league.

I dont see the club earnings as being a huge draw for players, but the potential earnings of an England player are astronomical. I would imagine that Ashton's earnings at Northampton are now dwarfed by his other income streams from the international game, and the endorsements that can be had. RL will never be able to compete with this, and to even try to would be suicidal for the game.

I do like reading these panic monkey threads.

This year we have lost two players to Union. Count them 2. Thats about 0.5%of our SL player roster.

People love to take anecdotal evidence nowa days and extrapolate that to create some pattern to fit their own strange paranoia.

Its a hit that both clubs and the league are well able to take. We cast aside a bigger percentage of our players each year to lower leagues.

Injury over the courseof a season has a greater impact.

People love to buy into hype too. Eastmond had great potential but lets face it has not been tested in RL. If he does well fair play to him but its a gap easily fixed.

Tomkins again is no great loss to Wigan even his more talented younger brother is not irreplaceable.

In the end money is the key. We could throw off the cap but that would lead to quick wage inflation for no good reason other than there being more money. Not more talent.

We need financially stronger clubs profitable club. This will lead to better wages for all players rather than throwing huge money to keep one or two players whilst bankrupting the clubs.

If we had a billion dollar tv contract a higher cap would work. But we dont the cap has to reflact the capacity of the clubs to bear the burden. Clubs alone cannot be trusted to act finacially soundly as chairmen will bust finances on the hope of on field success. With some faint faith that the money will follow.

Give me a sound business plan with a long term growth of league over some short term monkey panic because one or two employees have got a better paid job.

Jes!

Well said, that.

I agree with the other points in your post too.

Way too much flapping over nothing.