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.

That Sale signing this morning wasn't Eastmond. You probably all knew that (someone posted earlier that the Sale site listed that there was a new signing being announced this morning)

Make your mind up

Pretty sure that was yesterday mate.