He's not forced to adopt it. He could retain the existing salary structure. Our players would be no more exposed to union's temptations than they are currently.

Our success over the last decade has been that we are a team which is greater than the sum of its parts. We would survive the loss of any of those players. Sinfield is the biggest key to what Leeds do, and he would be our most unreplaceable, but as he is entering his more senior years we will have to start to think about life without him anyway shortly.

I don't think for one second that he would adopt it but I still believe he will be loathing the idea that others will.

how wrong is it that the cap has been changed to suit cheating ba$tards Wigan.

I'm already looking forward to Leeds' carefully crafted press release in response to this RFL led initiative.

At least this is interesting unlike the Wigan tie-up with their latest Union beau.

To be fair, it's being changed to suit Rugby League in general and the retention of outstanding young players rather than to suit Wigan in particular. It does happen to suit Wigan at the moment though.

If Hetherington would rather lose Hall or a more developed Hardaker to Union than pay near market rate for their services (provided Leeds could afford it notwithstanding the cap) then that's not very good for Leeds or for Rugby League.

I don't believe for one single minute that any union club would touch Sam Tomkins, or were ever in for him. And personally I think that's why he agreed a new deal at Wigan.

I don't want to be snobby because it's one of the many reasons I can not abide by the union game. But I can't deny that in union they have a certain "hooray" class about them. I can't recall anybody of such a low life personality ever playing in the union game. His brother is a completely different personality to Sam.

With regards the cap, I don't see any confirmation there that the RFL have amended the cap. The long serving rule has been there for years, with a 50% of salary increase to cap, to a maximum of £50,000.

You don't remember David Bishop.

He was already union, and they are a different breed now in that excuse for sport.

That rule was brought in AFTER Andy Farrell went to Union to allow RL to reward it's longer serving players.

I understand the Sam Tomkins new contract makes him the most expensice SL player and on a par with many top Union boys

Quote: Juan Cornetto "I understand the Sam Tomkins new contract makes him the most expensice SL player and on a par with many top Union boys'" £300k per year, according to this: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/no ... ur-nations If that's true, it's a big step up. I was initially worried that union would merely up the ante but I think they'd struggle to exceed this by much. After all, they've been losing their own players to french clubs for figures reputed to be in this ball park. Nonetheless, post-career prospects remain brighter with union and I think some players will continue to be enticed by the prospects of celebrity, regardless of salary.

Quote: Juan Cornetto "I understand the Sam Tomkins new contract makes him the most expensice SL player and on a par with many top Union boys'" £300k per year, according to this: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/no ... ur-nations If that's true, it's a big step up. I was initially worried that union would merely up the ante but I think they'd struggle to exceed this by much. After all, they've been losing their own players to french clubs for figures reputed to be in this ball park. Nonetheless, post-career prospects remain brighter with union and I think some players will continue to be enticed by the prospects of celebrity, regardless of salary.

In 2018? Awesome, let's get him signed up now!

Agree, not sure how being on a massive wedge does for team spirit. And does take a good size chunk of cap space.

As sinfield said I think after 2009 GF. Most of our squad could get more money elsewhere, but choose not to for special memories like GF ( clearly he said it better than I but I think that's the gist of it