The RFU had much grander plans for Farrell than what transpired.

Harris did well early on, but the consensus in Welsh RU is that he was brought on too soon, and thus failed (a failure of Welsh RU, not Harris).

Pryce and Walker beat a hasty retreat back to League.

Ashton was an okay full-back. One of the last appearances he made in league was at Belle Vue, when he bottled tackling Moore and took out the support player off the ball instead. He was derided at Wigan in his final year, as I remember, for developing a superstar attitude on the back of one decent season. He was not, and never became anywhere near., Kris Radlinksi. Myler did okay at Salford, which is no great tribute. If these average players are excelling at union, maybe it says more about union than league.

To play down the achievements of Faz and Harris is just daft. And totally incorrect.

Pryce never made it he really struggled.

Walker was as England A international.

Ashton was very good for Wigan untill he signed for Northampton after which point he had no interest.

Myler has a better pedigree than Brough at the same age in League.

Union have a much larger selection pool and it is a very different game. To dismiss the achievements of these lads is in my opinion very disrespectfull to them and born of ignorance.

Most League fans do not rate there achievements as it suits there agenda.

Faz was in a car crash and out of the game for 18 months but still became an England international.

Very few failed/have failed but it does not suit the League fans agenda to recognise this.

Strange how all but 1 of your selection returned to the 'real' game. Which shows to me that we should let be, what will be for now.

You can take a man out of League, but you can't take League out of the man!

Also, a few players started off in union at a younger age and are now playing in super league.

Anyone special in mind there?

No

In Andy Farrell's case, a very astute assessment.

I remember watching the England v South Africa game (RUWC group stage) when Farrell (who had been playing in the back row for Wigan) was England stand off. England were being pummelled, had an attacking play close to the South African line, and Farrell went solo - as you might in RL - to gain ground from which to start another attack. He had absolutely no players in support, and as a result, turned over posession. The commentator's remark was "you can get away with that in league, but not in union". A stupid remark, for all its implications, but Farrell took the blame in the media for the rest of the gutless bunch losing the game, and was dropped for the next game. He came back to prove his class, even though it wasn't enough in the end.

It's interesting that Scott Quinell goes down on the list of one of the union players to have made a success of league. Forwards do not, as a rule. You can switch between the backs, as the codes have done over the last few decades and more, but it's in the forwards that the major differences between the 2 codes lie.

Losing players like Smith to union is very disappointing. Union seem to be paying us back for our nicking of their top players in the late 70s/80s. What goes around comes around. We have a good product, increased attendances and a closer competition than we ever had in the "one professional club" era. We may lose a few more players in the process, but as long as the sport continues to increase in popularity, it's a long-term sacrifice worth making.

Would you pay £20 to watch a competative amateur game?

I could ring my mates up and get a competative game on in the morning would you pay £20 to watch it.

No silly response just a straight yes or no and a serious line to back it up either way.

No, I don't even pay that to watch a super league club.

The question was aimed at Rebel, but the crux is, do you think people will pay to simply watch a competative sport regardless of the quality?

I would pay to watch a competitive game as long as it was a reasonable price.

So you would base that decison on the quality of the product?

Both.

I sometimes go watch Stanley Rangers watched Oulton a couple of times af my mate playes for them.

If I went again and they said you have to pay, it would depend how much they would charge.

I would not pay over the odds but I would not mind paying say up to a £5.

So would you be happy to see a player that increases the quality of the product leave if it ment the game was more competative?

Would not bother me, the player has to make his own mind up. I can't change what they want to do.

If the player thinks he has a better future else where then so be it, it's the same in any job, if you get offered more money to move you will take it.

There might be a few players going to union, but there is also a few payers coming from union to league.

?

Can you tell me who?

Are they international players or top prospects?

The question was not aimed at the player in question, it was aimed at the fan, you and me, are you happy to pay for games that are competative regardless of the quality?

A couple of my mates started off in union and now play league.

A few SL players started in union. Was talking about it to another player and he said you would be suprised by the amount that start in union.

And no, I would not pay for a poor quality game even if it was competative.

The first time I trained in rugby that was in union, in primary school the Wakey rugby union team came and taught us a thing or 2, or they tried any way

Well what we are seeing is Union target International League players and its top prospects.

I played both codes union at a much higher standard than league but chose to follow league not sure that is a sign of improvement, simply a sign of someone who followed there heart regardless of the consequenses.

We all have mates, but what we do not all have is International players and proven Players at Sl level who when offered Union money that League clubs due to its restrictive rules regardless of its viability cannot match chose League.

BUT it's not like a massive number of international class players are going to union, if it was a big number of players then maybe I can see the point in the alarm bells.

Lee Smith, yeah he is a decent player but Leeds have players in there academy who will prob go on to be better than him.

At Accademy level Smith was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world.

Ainscough is being courted. Ashton went, many other non sigened juniors are being targetted and crossing.

Its not the established players we need to worry about anymore!

I see what you meen, but I am sure players will get produced to replace them. At the moment there is a fair few knocking about who have the potential to make it in SL.

If all they care about if money then let them go.

What is your plan? remove the salary cap all together?

No, my plan would be to relate the cap directly to turnover.

I would also like to see a rule that meant players produced from the Academy counted less towards the cap, for example only 70% of the wage contributed towards the cap, 50% if they made international selection.

I would also like to see overseas players wages count extra towards the cap maybe 120%.

This would force the hand of cliubs to invest in both youth and comercial viability, it would also ensure clubs did everything in there power to maximise there turnover and junior development.

Yeah I would be happy with that. I like the idea of it. It would sort 2 problems out, more younger British players and less overseas players.

Although Wakey used to get a lot of stick (rightly so) we are heading in the right direction and are giving young lads the chance that they would not get any where else IMO.

I agree and that is credit to the cap to a certain extent. What i do not like is this "leveling of the playing field" meaning clubs who have potential for growth are judged and held in the same esteem as the lowest common denominator.

For our sport to thrive we need to move forward and embrace growth not restrict it, which is where i feel the current rules of the cap fall down.

Of course you don't. Wigan fans liking the levelling of the playing field would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. However it makes for a more interesting competition that more people want to watch.



We do need to move forward. SL as a whole needs to improve and it is competition that drives that improvement. Allowing one team to dominate results in stagnation.