Eastmond to Bath

Quote: Tipster Ste "Getting back to the topic of Eastmond leaving the RFL,

As said previously the main driver will no doubt be finance as it was with young Ashton and pretty much with anyone who's switched codes.

The big question Mr Wood and Mr Lewis is why can the RFU offer such deals? Corporate and TV sponsorship will blow the RFL out of the water why??

Simply because the international game of RU is the pinnacle of the sport with a proper structure. We used to have such a thing with structured tours and succesful world cups anyone remember 95, 94, 90, etc??

But we have been brain washed by Uncle Mo, Chris Caisley, Mr Wood and now Mr Lewis in believing the RFL is at its strongest for years, do me a favour!!!

Can anything be done to stop such a drain

A few things.

League can't match these deals because Union is a much bigger sport played and watched by a much more affluent section of the population.

Union is nearly three times bigger than League in terms of numbers of people playing. An example - in the NW there are 182 adult RL teams. In the SW there are 524 adult RU teams. The SW is the third-strongest area for Union, behind Yorkshire and London. There are almost as many union teams in Yorkshire as there are rugby league teams in Europe.

Union grew from the public schools and universities, and in many respects the 1895 split was about that, with broken time payments simply being the catalyst. Union's administrators are from the elite in society. So are our business leaders and politicians. The former went to school with the latter. The latter played union in the same teams at university. They all hang out at Twickers, Henley, and in the City of London. Zara Philips is marrying an ex-England Centre. Can you imagine Princess Eugenie marrying Garry Schofield?

Union controls money, controls networks of power, which makes it worthwhile to put vast sponsorship into the game. Union is aspirational. It is literally true that people join rugby clubs to get on in business, to get on socially, to move up in the world. Does anyone really go to Queens or Golborne Parkside or Egremont because it will help them go up in the world?

Union owns its own facilities, especially its National Stadium. We can - sometimes - get 80,000 into Wembley and Old Trafford. They can - without fail - get 80,000 into Twickers six times a year. But we have to hire Wembley and Old Trafford.

Union also owns its own facilities at clubs the length and breadth of the country. There are 8 clubs in the SW Conference. 6 play at Union clubs, two on council pitches. The RL doesn't own a single acre of land in the south of England. It's said that in Gloucester you can kick a ball from pitch to pitch across the city.

Union's international game is much bigger than ours, that's true. We can't offer our players tours to Canada, Argentina, South Africa. They also have an international 7s circuit that covers Bahrain, Dubai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York. Plenty money there, I think.

And what of RL? It has more money now that it has ever had (and not a penny from the tobacco industry). Where is this golden age, eh? Pre Super-League, when only Wigan were fulltime professional, and only Wigan ever won anything? Where the RL World Cup was GB, France, PNG, Oz and NZ? The 1990 World Cup never happened, from 89-92 there was a weird series of events with no tournament, no meaning, and only 5 nations involved. What a farce.

Structured tours would stop converts? What nonesense. As if spending 6 weeks in Oz playing friendlies against Manly reserve grade on a Wednesday night in front of 2000 people in amongst a couple of Ashes tests would have kept Chris Ashton in League. Don't be daft. The two things Union has are a massive international game and money, full stop.

Increasing the salary cap would just increase the amount of money flowing out of the game into players' pockets, and would increase the regularity with which the RFL had to bail out mismanaged clubs.

There are three key things that stop our game disappearing into a merger/takeover by union, with all the top level players going over to the dark side.

Number one. Union is far more complex than league. To master its techicalities is exceptionally hard. To do so aged 22 is almost impossible. Hence why very few leaguies have made it to the same level in union. The move the other way, from union to league, is far far easier, especially for backs (forwards' specialist skills in union are useless in league, so its a harder transition from them to us, and impossible from us to them).

Number two. Union is dull. Dull to play, dull to watch, at least if you come from a RL background. Players have far less time involved. There is less of what we consider the essence of rugby - passing moves, tackles, offloads, running lines through or round the collision. There are far more dull games than good ones. There is much more dead time. Far more setpieces where little happens, and most of that which does happen is hidden from view.

Number three. The RFL has done an amazing job at protecting itself. I know you don't believe this. Without the Sky deal and SL, RL would have vanished in a generation once union turned pro. Without limits on salaries and strict financial control, many or most of our leading clubs would have ceased to exist. Without it's brilliant Whole Sport Plan, we wouldn't be the best Government-funded sport in the country (as per playing base).

We are seen as a flagship sport in so many areas, except by our own people. The Chair of our Sport becomes the Chair of Sport England. All other sports wonder how we've done it. Except our own, who still regard us as a calamity.

It really is amazing, being at sports forums in Bristol and Taunton and Plymouth, constantly being asked how RL have been so successful in what other (bigger) sports are struggling at, then looking at our own internal conversations on here about how dire our management is. Sorry folks, it isn't true. We are - now - one of the best-administered sports in the UK. Others look on us with envy.

Interesting you mention 'successful world cups'. Our sport was almost bankrupt by an unsuccessful world cu in 2000. But now the RFL makes money, has money in the bank, and even has the Conservative Government promising to treat our World Cup with the same financial guarantees that it has given to the RU World Cup.

I've said it before, but if the clubs were run in the same way that the RFL is run, SL average attendances would be 30,000+ and all clubs would be in healthy profit. If the RFL was run in the way the clubs are run, we'd be watching football or kick and clap, and RL would exist in the memory only.

The question should not be 'why can't the RFL do more'. It should be 'why can't the clubs manage themselves better and work in the best interests of the game'.