WiganWarriorsFans.com

GeoffN posted:
This article by Dave Woods of the BBC sums up my feelings pretty well...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 261649.stm

I read it and he seems to be saying the fact RU need Farrell is a poor reflection on RU. It is but it doesn't alter the fact RL and Wigan will be worse off with Faz running around in an England shirt.

I think both Woods and Noble are putting a brave face on it and little more than that.

You can also bet your house on the fact the RU press won't see it Dave Woods way and will talk up the signing to the detriment of RL. Since the press has an RU bias that is how it will seem to the wider world.

Dave

DaveO posted:
You can also bet your house on the fact the RU press won't see it Dave Woods way and will talk up the signing to the detriment of RL. Since the press has an RU bias that is how it will seem to the wider world.

Dave

Very true. The RU media has no interest in rugby league, and will probably put some spin on things to say that Farrell's move, if it happens, shows that the top league men now see union as an irresistable pull, is clearly the better game, and shows how poor international RL is when a player as successful as Farrell has to change codes to get the success he desires playing for his country. Either that or they won't even mention about Faz being a league player. They don't really mention anything about Jason Robinson's or Henry Paul's successes in league, they are union players now 100% in the eyes of the media and anything they did before is irrelevant.

tell you the truth ill suport farrell which ever he choses to go weather he stays in the super league or


weather he changes codes and goes to union

if R.U. is so good why can,t they produce their own players. imo looking from a distance R.L.looks to be more on the up than R.U.

If challenged in the European Court the Cap would be banned on the grounds of restrain of trade and human rights.

Sounds daft doesnt it but that what the Bossman ruling was.

Whether u agree with the cap or not it has saved clubs from going out of business as clubs did over stretch themselves financaially.

They import older players from the Super 12. There structure was all geared for the 2003 World Cup. They forgot about the future.

RFU is now desperate.

Personally i cant see where Faz would play. Back row in Union takes years to get to grips with thats why so many good back row are older. Centre, he would be found wanting for pace against O Driscoll and Henson.

This is a desperate act by the RFU to disgaise the fact England are on the way to being a poor side again.

They have no co-ordinated youth structure and clubs run their own. Sad really as how many good under 23 are in Super League at the moment. There is a lot only a handful in the Union.

After watching England on sunday, i wondered if they'd be happy if he just kicked goals,They don't seem interested in winning a game by scoring tries.
The salary cap would'nt be so bad if they had left it the way it was when it was first introduced.

mario posted:
After watching England on sunday, i wondered if they'd be happy if he just kicked goals,They don't seem interested in winning a game by scoring tries.
The salary cap would'nt be so bad if they had left it the way it was when it was first introduced.

Interestingly I was reading somewhere about the RU salary cap and how it was being raised, with commentators hoping that the extra money will be spent bringing new players to augment a team so that individuals can be rested to avoid burnout, but there's a concern that instead they'll just increase the pay of the existing players.

I thought that a rather novel idea, raising the salary cap once the sport has stabalised its finances. Can't see it ever taking off in rugby league though...

WIth wilkinson and faz there would be no need to score tries really

Depends whether you see the cap as intended to protect clubs' finances or to penalise the better managed clubs (with better youth development) and bring them down to the level of the others.
Originally meant to be the former, of course, but in that case why not a straight % of income rather than a set figure?
Oh yeah, then the league would be dominated by 4 or 5 'big' clubs, unlike now... :conf: