Gruff

I don't think anyone holds the players views in contempt, are everyone is quite happy to listen to the players. What the gripe is, is that players saying they would leave to go elsewhere has been reported as a player exodus fear. It is not a fear, it's the players saying they want more money. Too right. Everyone wants more money. What would have been interesting would be a follow up question - have you been approached by RU or the NRL within the past 3 years. if a high percentage said yes, coupled with the above question, then there is a legitimate right to be fearful of an exodus. However, I am more than confident to state that the majority of SL have never been approached by RU or the NRL, therefore regardless of whether they would move for more money, they couldn't. Therefore no fear of an exodus. The timing could have been done better. Why not a Monday? Why today? As mentioned on a previous post I think it was in an effort to piggy back on Salford's news, and it make one eague three look amateurish at best.

Couldn't agree more. I would have loved to find out why the players think as a sport we cannot attract more sponsorship/money so they can get better paid, and what they think needs to change. Unfortunately we are treated to false headlines and a RL beat up.

Is there a player exodus fear? Normal people see that 75% of players would move elsewhere for more money. Why wasn't the headline "RL players want more money" RLW see this as a player exodus. Terrible sensationalist journalism perpetuated by a negative spin. There is a lot of positivity that could have been reported, but instead they made something up.

Ha ha - Good man

I disagree - I think it's good to get views from players. However, the timing is atrocious and counter-productive and the poor RL writers we seem to have we only make sensationalist headlines and try to make everything seem doom and gloom- see title thread. There is no exodus fears - 1 in ten SL player will get offered more money to play in the NRL or Union. 75% might want to go somewhere else for more money (v.surprised its not 100%), but that doesn't mean they will do. You can spin these figures however you want - 25% of current players would never leave the superleague regardless of the riches on offer. 75% want to be better paid - this is not a player exodus. You get better journalism from the sunday sport.

You'd think wouldn't you... Potential Sponsor: "What's all the hub-bub with Salford, whats going on there then? Marketeer: "Well, this time last year they were about to go bust, then this great new investor has come in, shaking things up, about to undergo a massive relaunch, has signed some of the best players available, and is investing lots of money" Potential Sponsor: "Wow, that sounds like something I want to be involved with and get my name associated with" Marketeer: " Oh, hang on, I've just got something else through saying that 75% of their players want to leave to go to Union or Australia" Potential Sponsor: "Lets sponsor that instead then" Morons, the lot of them

Cant really see this having any shocks - it will highlight what we, as fans, think and with regards to players leaving the competition why is this such a surprise? If someone offered to pay me twice as much to do the same job in Australia, I'd go. If someone offered to pay me twice as much to do a similar job in this country, i'd go. Why are sportsmen any different. The only way to combat this is to get more money in the game, which only works by improved perception and people wanting to be associated with the game, which will never happen if articles come out saying 75% of the players want to leave the game, especially 7 weeks before the biggest tournament in its history. Good job no-one is dumb enough to do this..... oh

Given the 23 man squad is going to consist of 6 props, 5 backrowers, 2 hookers and 10 backs I think there is room, and they will be there on merit. S. Burgess will prob not be classed as a prop. WC Props G. Burgess T. Burgess L. Burgess J. Graham E. Crabtree L. Mossop With Sam as cover would be a great forward line up and I can't think of anyone who would be an automatic selection ahead of these boys. This leaves Sam, Ellis, westwood, O'Loughlin and ANOther as the back row.

Like you Martyn I've dealt with a number of senior partners at the Top 4 and don't see my faith in them as naive, just the reality that if they didn't know what they were doing they wouldn't be the size and success they are. The NFL is essentially a national sport - they don't need the extra income - they get billions through endorsements, sponsorship, customers etc... They also don't have an international scene, so on your thinking we should scrap the World Cup??. They don't have P&R and franchise everything - is that your suggestion? In fact, they have consulted Managament Consultancies in the past to advise on maximising revenues - the suggestions that came back obviously weren't the same as for the RFL i.e. additional fixtures. If a restaurant owner saw that by opening 24hrs would increase their bottom line they would do however there isn't the custom 24hrs a day. By using that as an analogy you are suggesting that no-one would pay to see these extra games? I disagree. Finally, I assume, like you said, if our stadium are not bulging at the seams and we don't win the WC in 2017 then these proposals have failed? Tough call for the likes of Huddersfield who need to quadruple their fan base within 4 years. I assume you have spoken to Ken Davy and told him your proposals to fill out the John Smiths Stadium on a regular basis? Maybe he just isn't smart enough to know these things.

I think you are being very condescending towards a multinational, multi-billion pound turnover company there Martyn. They are experts at providing advice for companies on the best way to run their business to make it as profitable as possible, having done if for thousands of organisations across the world. I'm sure they wouldn't ask you to write a report of how to run an accountancy firm, or any other, given you have no experience, training or qualifications to do so. Im not sure what the issue with repeat fixtures is - we have them at the moment, with home and away, challenge cup, Magic, and playoffs providing up to 5 games. In football Man U could play Man City up to 8 times in one season; League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, and Charity Shield - their fans don't complain and would fill out the stadiums for all games. And the additional fixtures is a way of increasing income - and agreed by the clubs. Wasn't the later split their suggestion anyway, rather than the split after 12 rounds - hence they want it and want the extra games. All the arguments and disparaging comments are baseless, arrogant and appear just to be another way to give the RFL stick, when the proposals still have to be agreed and sanctioned by the clubs.

And what happens when only 40% of those turn up, due to a 40% chance of rain or the fact that 40% of the players playing in the tournament were born in Australia. My head hurts....40% of the time....

All depends on them bringing a TV Contract by 2015. Could still be a real possibility.

I think the points are the clubs get more income through increased home fixtures - two more each - and the championship clubs get more money helping to develop a fully pro second tier. In addition, the KPMG report would suggest they believe that having this competitive element will increase TV monies, leading to greater payments in the future.

Based on the info in the FAQ's I wouldn't be surprised if; - London stay in - Toulouse get a spot if this will get a foreign TV contract - 3 of Widnes, Hull KR, Wakey, Cas get relegated initially - which they agree to depending on size of parachute payments

The FAQ's are here; http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/about_the_rfl/policyreviewfaqs Main points are; - RFL to decide who will make up the top 12 initially. - Relegated teams to lower divisions will receive parachute payments - Toulouse more than likely will be in if they bring a broadcaster to the table - The end of season split will most likely happen - i.e. 3x8, with SL clubs getting a bye into the CC 5th round - Super league clubs will get no more tv money than they do now - Significant increase in the amount of money given to the Championship clubs through TV income - Number of matches increases to minimal of 30 - Final playoffs a quick 1st vs 4th and 2nd vs 3rd, then final