I think Union are more likely to go after Gaskell and Foster because of their kicking abilities.

FFS I hope this doesn't come to fruition.

The RFL have to do something though before the unionites come knocking on the door,I don't want or need another Eastmond saga like we had last season.

First consider the source.

Next this player drain has resulted in erm two players going to union.

If we can withstand the loss of two players to union over the course of a season then we are not a sport worth talking about.

I'll comment when I see more than an alleged conversation with a ref who as far as I know would not be involved in players contract negotiations at any level. And certainly should not be so close to a player to allow for speculation over vested interests when refing a match.

In other words not much to see here. lol

Were you p1ssed when your wrote this?

Why cant we have any fees for youngsters. Surely if they are under contract to play it does not matter what sport they are moving to a fee still has to be paid. Its a contract of employment after all.

The lack of big money in our game these days means clubs in my opinion and that is what it is! who develop young players should get some compensation, otherwise as money gets tighter any young player who wants to move on (or who is told a large club is interested in him) just does not sign a new contract so he goes for free? and saves that club money, well we may as well not have contracts. In fact more and more contracts are not worth the money they are printed on.

What you propose there is a version of slavery. How much did you pay your first employer for developing you?

Contracts should be honoured and maybe written a little better. But there is a huge difference between a contract which is a voluntary agreement for the supply of goods and services and a fee once that contract has expired.

What if like most players they dont make it to SL standard the club can just drop them with no such fee once the contract is over.

Slavery for a fee to be paid for a young player that has been developed, perhaps keep it to players under 23 and only from other super league clubs, the current system which you support if fine for the rich clubs so they get richer!

I know it would never get through as the leading clubs control Super League and only see the rest of the teams as make up of a league!

There is already a system in place which dictates that if a player under the age of 23 is offered a contract by his club that is as good as or better than their expiring deal then a transfer fee has to be paid. That was certainly the case three or four years ago, anyway.

You are quite correct, but the simple truth is some clubs ride shod over that and get away with it!

Under that rule wouldn't we get a fee for Kyle?

It wouldn't happen because its against the law. no contract therefore no fee.

Good point. It struck me when I first heard about that rule that it might be tricky to maintain legally. Surely a 22 year old has as much right to free access to the labour market as a 24 year old. Perhaps it has gone by the wayside. Or perhaps it only applies to transfers within the game.

You've got this the wrong way round. Lomax told me that the RFU had made Ganson a big money offer. He's to be the new Jonny Wilkinson apparently.