1 rumor in the 70's was that the players for Wales got paid by adidas to wear their boots in games. During my time of playing union we were hearing stories of players getting paid backhanders to play. No such thing as ametur in union tbh. Difference was when it became a fully professional run game the organisation's became professional as well. RFL is amaeturish run by people in charge.

I'm not sure that Joel Tomkins will make it in rugby union. I don't think he is a back as he wasn'ty a great centre at Wigan. He certainly isn't a front row forward and the top class backrow forwards in RU are taller than Joel.

I think he will struggle at this alien game and he will return to rugby league in a couple of years as Smith of Leeds did. Not sure if Eastmond will make it either.

Our only hope is that all rugby league signing fail so the Union hierarchy will think twice before signing anyone else. I do think Sam would be outstanding on the dark side.

How do you suggest that the RFL should respond, given all relevant legislation on restraint of trade etc?



It is not up to the RFL to respond to any players being tempted away, that is totally within the remit of individual clubs. There have been suggestions of raising the cap - that would be fine if the majority of clubs were spending close to the cap. It would be even better if the clubs were providing enough income to cover paying their players AND investing in the future, without the need of any sugar-daddy benefactors.



Just remember, you haven't got a ground you can flog to Tesco anymore.

You don't know much about union do you? He'd easily be tall enough to be a back row forward, although I wouldn't expect him to plan on being a flanker or no8. He's a typical modern day union centre and has all the attributes to do so. His only negative point is that at centre his defensive footwork and positioning could occasionally be found out in league but this won't be exloited as much in union as far as I'm concerned.



I don't want him to go by any means, but I do think he's going to do quite well. I think Sam on the other hand, despite being the better league player, would struggle to adapt to union as there isn't any particular position that stands out in regards to his size and main qualities.

No I don't know much about union having been a pupil at John Rigby which only played union, then played union until I was 29 and had to quit because of injury. Joel is not a high calibre centre in either code. He will go okay but won't be worth £400k per year to Saracens.

There are plenty of things the RFL could do as opposed to the clubs. They could change the rules so players earnings from outside their club wages did not count on the cap. So players being sponsored, any advertising earnings they could get and now image rights are not a tax dodge the RFL could remove that from the salary cap calculation and let players earn money from that and so on. Basically the cap would be based on what the club paid the players not what the players earned so that would address your concern of clubs not being able to afford higher wages because they would not be paying them any more then they are now.

Former England captain Bill Beaumont got banned for life from the sport by the IRB because he wrote an autobiography including (obviously) his RU exploits and dared to earn money from the sales. (The ban was rescinded after they went pro in 1995 and he is now on the IRB himself). The idea RU was basically a pro sport in all but name pre-1995 is nuts.

Dave, Dave, Dave you really must think these things through. How would such a proposal help Wakefield et al?

It probably would help them anyway if you think about it. If a player was earning money from activities such as selling his image rights or whatever from outside his club salary he would bring that income with him to Wakey. They would get a more valuable player without having to pay him a higher salary.



It's not a new idea either. This is what Bradford got done on the salary cap for a few years back. Harris was being sponsored by a company and they had an advert either in the program or round the ground. I don't think the advertising mentioned Harris at all but the fact they advertised with Bradford was enough for them to be judged to have a link to the club and so any money paid by them to Harris had to count on the cap as income earned and that is why they went over the cap.



Reforming these rules has got to be the easiest and cheapest way for the game to let its players earn more money which it definitely needs to do and provided it is clear clubs can't sponsor players etc then it won't cost them a penny more in wages than they pay out now.

It is also then allowing the rich clubs to pull even further away from the less well off. Or is that what you are looking for, a four-team super-duper league?



You assert that it will cost the clubs nothing, who are you trying to kid? Who would sponsor a player and then expect nothing from his employer in return?



It is also reducing what clarity we now enjoy and making it even more difficult to find those clubs that are using underhand methods to remunerate players

time for the smaller clubs in the league to get their fingers out or go to the championship where their finances/ambitions would be more suitabale