IL is wrong on the SC.

The point that we will never know whether players would have made it in league is key - the talent pool is shrinking as players leave the game.

There is an even bigger threat in the long term than RU poaching, which is that as pay in real terms continues to decline there will be fewer players coming into the game. That's just basic maths and economics.

And then pay levels will reach the point where they can't support a full time pro competition.

I would actually say it was the other way round, in that Robinson (and Andy Farrell) were coming towards the end of their League careers, probably both had 1-2 more years with Wigan had they stayed, so in effect RL had the best years out of them.

Whereas Owen Farrell and Thornley had their whole careers ahead of them in League (probably at Wigan - maybe not) had Union not come along. So to say they were not of value to the game is incorrect. The fact that they were snatched prior to making a first team appearance in league is irrelevant, they were exciting prospects (as was Ashton) who are now lost to the game forever (probably)......now that's the real shame!

It does to me. It's the kind of thing that Lenagan was complaining about when he first arrived: that a few highly paid players were restricting his abiliity to pay the rest of the side what they were worth.

If you set Eastmond at £200k, do an exercise with the relative value of the rest of the squad - you very quickly get to a total salary cost around £4million, and it'll be a long time before that's sustainable in our sport.

Interesting attitude. I disagree with it, so I mustn't have heard it.

That's the sort of arrogance that is blinding you to the facts.

It's quite telling that all of a sudden you're narrowing down the field of those who've defected to proven, top quality players. What, I wonder, is the more damaging - the loss of players like Jason Robinson and Andy Farrell, who really were veterans in RL and had given us their best years, or the loss of players like Chris Ashton, Owen Farrell and Kyle Eastmond, who had all the tools we look for in future stars but will now never know about because they'll be doing it in another sport?

It doesn't take a genius to answer that.

All you're doing here is massaging the facts to suit your argument. Why not say - how many Great Britain captains have defected? One - and he was a crock. Why not say how many Golden Boot winners have defected? One - and he was a crock.

You see, it's just silly. The reality is that we can't afford to lose any - past stars or future stars. And please don't give me the argument that "we don't know they'd be future stars". It doesn't take a discerning eye to work out that in the likes of Owen Farrell and George Ford we've lost great talents of the future.

I've no idea who Owen Farrell is and Kyle Eastmond has already shown us what he can do, which is why we - that is, Saints fans at the very least - don't want him to go to Union. Players crossing codes when we have no idea what they can do in League is no loss to League. But if Sam Tomkins had decided to go, even though he was still young, you would be upset because you already know how good he is. A player doesn't have to be at the end of his career for his worth to be obvious. But by contrast, someone who has not even shown a hint of his worth yet cannot be experienced as a loss (what you don't know, you don't miss). Ditto for those League players who are average or poor.

2 x comments that indicate to me the rest of you are wasting your time here.

Beat me to it.

I'm sorry but the bits in bold are utter, utter nonsense. You're not serious, surely?

And as for the comment about Owen Farrell....

You are talking that much nonsense that i am actually starting to feel sorry for you. It takes a massive airhead to keep digging deeper like you are doing.

Your recent posts have been devoid of any humor, insight or knowledge whatsoever. Think you are probably best giving it a rest now.

Please, please, please stop digging. I'm actually beginning to get embarrassed for you...

The truth is RL can't afford to lose either high profile players or good youngsters. We simply don't produce enough good British players to lose either sort. Just look at our outside backs of recent years. We haven't been raided en masse by Union in part because quite frankly who would you bother spending big money on? Shenton? Ryan Hall? Of the England team of recent years probably only Tomkins and Eastmond in the backs would get a second glance from Union or the NRL.

I think the model Leeds (and Wigan) have started using with respect to young players is a good one. The idea seems to be if they look promising early on, take a risk and offer them a long-term deal with lower upfront costs and higher in later years, but be ready to renegotiate the whole deal upwards if they make it. It means the club is taking a risk by offering a long-term deal to an unproven player (in the case of Hardaker at Leeds, he's signed for 5 years without having played a single SL game); the risk to the player is that the club honours its word to renegotiate the contract upwards if things are working out.

It does suggest a lot of faith in juniors, which hopefully the player will appreciate. It also requires clubs to start thinking about re-signing players long before their contract expires - which should suit both parties. At the very least it maximises the compensation the club would get from union (or the NRL for that matter) if they become really insistent and want to leave.

One other point - every club has plenty of cash to spend on Aussies/Kiwis. They could CHOOSE to spend more of this on youngsters. Most clubs don't.