I know for a fact that they are hoping to invest heavily i the youth as peter gentle and adam pearson are looking towards making their own stars. Things like that need rolling out across the country though.

Isn't the difference Wigan did it without a wealthy financial backer back in the 90's? Whelan never ran the club as a profit making business once he took over later and just chucked money at it as and when required. Surely that is the model Scade1 was advocating not a club getting into debt to fund such players?

We need to get the sport in a position to compete for players monetarily. So when the likes of Sam do leave we are able to entice top Aussies here.

Now that is very easy to say but very hard to do obviously.

There are three things I can think of that would at least be a start.

Removing any restrictions on what a player can earn independently from being a star player like Sam so they don't count on the salary cap. Image rights and so on. Our salary cap strikes me as almost a throwback to the days of the RFU to enforcing amateurism in that respect!

Sack Nigel Woods and get someone in who recognises the problem rather than someone who thinks altering the league structure will save the game.

Seek to match TV revenues the likes of RU get off BT. In other words proper marketing.

It all boils down to simply getting more money into the game and into players pockets and its about time those running it recognised that and realise in pro sport that is what dictates where the quality players go.

We won't end up paying silly wages like soccer but I certainly don't have a problem with the levels of remuneration in RL being much higher than they are.

Really?

I'd have him ahead of Hanley at his age.

Do you think anybody is going to pay for BT to watch RU? Really? Recall ITV digital and Championship football? BT is a sinking ship before its set sail, RU are welcome to it

Isn't he about the age now that Hanley was when we signed him?
I've said for a while that if tomkins stays till the end of next year it will be the same length of time Hanley was with us and IMO if he produces the kind of performances he has done over the last 3/4 years in that time I'd say he will have given me as much pleasure and excitement to watch him as it was to watch Hanley.

In terms of his attack he is better than Hanley was at 24 imo.

Defence is weaker than Hanley.

Then again as you say he is about the same age as when Hanley signed for Wigan, and after that, when Hanley moved to 13, he kicked on imo.

Interesting to see if Sam can do the same. Maybe it's Oz that will enable him to do so.

but the one thing Sam wont be able to do is to swap into the pack, and at the end of his career break try-scoring records as a forward. sam maybe versatile at 1 and 7, but Hanley was a legend in halves, centres and at loose forward.

Well unless you have missed the adverts they are advertising free soccer and RU if you get BT broadband. They have obviously chucked money at both soccer and RU in a bid to establish themselves as a true rival to Sky in the digital TV sphere. In many areas such as where I live they are the only real alternative to Sky for those sports as Virgin is not available. So at the moment I doubt the RU clubs care who watches it as the cash is on its way.

Long term it has to be worthwhile for BT to continue but for now they have paid the cash and RU has sold itself well. Meanwhile Nigel Woods ponders the merits of a league of three leagues of 8 v two of 10 etc.

Lineham's from Leeds and the Hull FC youth production line has effectively been Castleford. There must be something wrong with the amateur/youth structure and coaching in what is a proper rugby league city that they've produced so few SL players of note over the last decade.

"The cost of the Football League deal proved one too many a burden for ITV Digital, and it was placed into administration on 27 March 2002, after the League refused to accept a £130m pay cut in its £315m deal with the ITV Sport Channel. Most subscription channels ceased broadcasting on ITV Digital on 1 May 2002. The collapse on 30 June 2002 caused severe financial difficulties for lower-division football clubs who had budgeted for large incomes from the television contract. The Football League sued ITV Digital's parent companies, Carlton and Granada, claiming that the firms had breached their contract in failing to deliver the guaranteed income. And so, by the end of June 2002, the service ceased. The League lost the case, with the judge ruling that it had "failed to extract sufficient written guarantees". The League then filed a negligence claim against its lawyers for failing to press for a written guarantee at the time of the deal with ITV Digital. This time it was awarded a paltry £4 in damages of the £150m it was seeking" -- good old WikiP
Like I say RU can have BT, they will never be able to compete with SKY, ask Setanta & ESPN. RU using BT is a massive victory for Super league.

Sky would have monopolised football if it was allowed to, its not under current contractually regulations. That's why it has to share with other providers. That is the only reason why BT have got some football games. Sky will keep what it wants if it can. Basically if it can make money out of it then they will take it if they can. And no one TV provider can compete with them.

They could have taken the rights to RU but as they have found out the viewing figures are not that great much less than Super League games for domestic games. I agree with you Mash Butty its a big win for SL that RU has gone to a new channel that will be very much dependant on footbal for its subscriptions.

ESPN is a much bigger company than BT its run by Disney and they did not go for the right to RU or if it did it was not willing to pay as much as BT and that says something for you. BT are paying too much for the Union rights. The union clubs will be happy that they will get this money but BT will realise quickly they will not recoup the investment. They are as Dave says giving free sports package with broadband so they are already losing money on the deal. You can not take on the King and expect to survive as many broadcasters have found out to its costs take on SKY adn you lose. Only ESPN can live with them and that's due to its backing by Disney.

And lets remind everyone what Disney own - Marvel comics and all the film rights - Avengers, Spider-Man, IronMan etc, Pixar animations and STAR WARS. A massive company that said no thanks to RU....

"Sky is to offer free broadband to Sky Sports customers – a retaliatory move in response to BT offering BT Sport free to its own broadband users.Sign up to the deal and the new Sky Sports subscribers will receive one year's free unlimited broadband, with just the £14.50 line rental to pay each month. Customers can also choose to get six months of Sky Fibre Unlimited for free, a saving of £20 per month."
The War has started

The ESPN / Disney view is a misrepresentation of business priorities. Whilst the ESPN UK formed an arm of the ESPN / Disney business, there was never a commitment to take on Sky as it was an expansion market based on opportunism rather than a serious power play. Setanta's failure gift wrapped a footy package that Sky couldn't take and terrestrial couldn't afford, and they swooped on RU rights when Sky called the RFU's bluff. They got burned on the latter deal, which did not have the subscription draw expected and were already starting to cut their losses, by sacrificing other UK rights - NHL, NASCAR - before losing the footy package and RU.

On the other hand, BT are a much more serious player in their core market. The tv rights aspect is a power play in the bigger struggle with Sky over the lucrative telephone / broadband market. They are smarter than ESPN and Setanta in understanding that they will never compete with Sky for tv subscriptions alone, despite having their own service (like Virgin Media), so are enticing Sky TV subscribers to their other services. Like it or not they are a serious player in a game much bigger than just tv and consequently RU are in no danger by taking their side.