Agreed.

But if this is true it is something the RFL must look at. How can we keep our potentially great (which Eastmond is) in our game? Why bother promoting these youngsters and putting money into them if they're only going to sod off to RU?

I realise I'm venturing slightly O/T here.

I don't think you're venturing off topic at all. I think this is the most important issue.

Saints lose a star player? - big deal. They couldn't have cared less when we lost one or two.

RL loses a star player - yes, that matters a lot.

What will be interesting now is how many Saints fans rush on here to yet again defend the salary cap instead of agreeing with us that it should be moderated. One or two will still defend it, because they'll want to keep up the pretence that it's good for the game and not look shallow and self-interested, but there won't be half as many as there are whenever we lose a star.

For 2010?

No, when his contract expires at the end of next year.

Be interesting if they give him the 7 shirt to replace Long next year then if thats the case, or if they go and find a 7 from elsewhere.

Big loss to RL if he goes to Stockport.
As the RFL/SL are going from an U21s comp to U20s next year as do the Aussies, perhaps it's time to do as the Aussies do with the salary cap, they exclude the reserve grade.
Should we now do the same?

I don't whether it would prevent Saints losing Eastmond but if I were Lenegan I would be petitioning the RFL that players brought through a clubs own Junior system should be exempt from there salary cap.

I know that would benefit us greatly as well as rewarding those clubs that do try and bring through juniors.

Have you ever bothered to read the salary cap rules? The £1.6m cap is based upon the top 20 earners only.

FIWI, some clown on the Saints board is already trying to claim that the Eastmund to Sale story is a Wigan conspiracy designed to gain their support in our opposition to the salary cap.

This would be funny if it didn't make three tragic presumptions:

a) That we are such fantastists that we'd realistically expect their support on any matter; b) that we are so insecure as to want their support on any matter; c) that we are too stupid to realise they would happily see Eastmund leave the game altogether before they did anything in support of us.

Yes I have read the SC rules, or those I can get to read.
The SC applies not to the highest paid 20 in the squad but the highest paid 25.
That includes U21 or U20 players at most clubs.
They need to be excluded from the SC IMO.
If we want to compete with the NRL on the field then we've to compete with them off it too.
U20s off the SC asap!

I think under 21s as long as they are not your highest earners.

This means that more young players would leave though due to us not being able to pay them when they reach a certain age.

I would have 3 parts of the cap, one for young players through the system, one for foreign players (anyone not from this country

), and english players bought from other clubs. Leave enough room on the foreign players cap for 2 world class players.

I think legally you can't catagories "foreign" players anymore.
Hence the RFL brought in the Home trained, Federation trained and Non Federation trained rules
I just think that if the NRL exclude their reserve grade and they can bring players through in the vast numbers they do, then to increase our supply of younger players that could very well be the way to do it.