Yep. We need to start doing now what we should have been doing 20/30 years ago.

back on the subject of central contracts
IMO the ethos behind it is to stop the talent drain from SL to NRL and RU
Wouldn't the simplest implementation to be to set a budget for the year and any England squad player to be given a percentage (1/25) of the budget
Would this encourage the best players to stay in SL? Is this a big enough incentive to keep the talent and encourage fringe players to up their game?

Why not just increase the salary cap? Or say every club can have 1 or 2 players eligible for England who do not count on the cap. If the RFL have the funds to give out central contracts, they should increase the amount they give to clubs IMO.

They should not be giving out central contracts, to certain players at certain clubs. Who decides who to give the contracts to? Nigel Wood? Some clubs are going to benefit while others miss out. We already have a situation where a player who has never played for England is receiving payment directly from the RFL, why was he chosen ahead of others?

That final paragraph sums up my feelings perfectly.

we had this situation years ago, likes of Radlinski, cunningham, and a few others given RFl payments to stop them switching to Union, then Hull i think it was wanted funded to keep one of there players(maybe Gareth Raynor) and were told funds not available for him.

we don't want this again in our game, simply increase the cap full stop to at least 2.2 million and increase for homegrown club trained players up to maximum 2.6 million. it wonted stop them all going but it will help keep players in Uk and away from NRL. that in it self will increase standard of our league and national side.

There has to be no link between the central contracts and the playing contract. For example, Kallum Watkins would get £25-£50k per year for playing for England, he needs to be available for internationals and get togethers on X dates. If he is in the NRL he wont be available for those dates, if he plays RU he simply wouldnt be available, if he plays for Leeds he would, if he plays for Wakefield he would.

So to solve the issue of our best players leaving SL and making the competition weaker.....we put them on contracts that would see them withdrawn from SL duty from several games to play for England. Great.

I think you are doing that trick of yours of exaggerating outcomes to prove your point.

In reality, at most, England squad players may be unavailable for club duty on one or two games per year. Is that really a massive cost to pay for attempting to head off competition from RU & NRL, at the same time attempting to bolster the international game?

Even if it was 5 or 6 domestic games a year they'd miss, is that really a huge price to pay out of 30+ games?
Surely having those players for 25 games is better than none?

In the end the only way SL is going to increase its profile and the money in the game is through more internationals. The only way to fit more internationals in is to either reduce the amount of domestic games or take international players out of SL for some games. There is no alternative if you want more international games.

Plus, it'd give the understudies a go. No bad thing at all.

If it's 1 or 2 games then it's a pointless cost. RU & cricket don't give out contracts to get guys for 1 or 2 games. Might as well sell fire to the cash.

Problem is SL isn't at a position where it can afford to lose its best players for 5/6/7 weeks. Sponsors and TVs won't be offering the same if they know the best guys are being taking out of the competition for a period of time.