It's rare to see a behemoth like Origin take a backseat but Smith had little choice but to wade into the debate in response to an email sent to clubs over the the weekend that suggested the Rugby League Player Association's proposed deal would drive the code into the ground.

The parties are more than $200 million apart in their initial CBA proposals ahead of a two-day meeting scheduled for June 5. The players' union believes key revenue streams have been omitted from the estimate, while NRL powerbrokers believe player demands, which include a 29 per cent revenue share, will bleed the game dry.

That message has incensed leading players, Smith being at the top of the list. He said this time, there would be no backing down and refused to rule out the spectre of industrial action

"No, I don't think it's unreasonable [what players are asking]. There's been a substantial increase in money come into the game and that's mostly due to the guys that are producing on the field. The product that the broadcasters pay for is what the players produce," Smith said.

"The playing group and the RLPA, we're not going to disappear. We're not going to run away with our tail between our legs.

"I believe there's a document been released to NRL clubs by the NRL with some fairly inflammatory wording which are completely untrue. That's the most disappointing part.

"We've approached this discussion wanting to be a part of a collective group of the game and wanting to grow the game and for certain people in the NRL to go back to the clubs and put an idea in their mind that the players are going to bring the game to its knees is really hard to believe to be honest."

And on the possibility of a strike, Smith said: "We've got some ideas on the table. We'll make decisions around that. We've got some ideas in place."

While Smith and the RLPA were on war footing, NRL chief executive Greenberg said he refused to believe industrial action would come into play and categorised his discussions with the RLPA as 'really good'.

""I haven't heard that, I haven't seen that, I don't think it will come to that," Greenberg said in regards to the threat of a player strike.

"We've been in really good discussions with the players and their association for a number of months but as I said at the outset these are big negotiations for the players, I understand that and they've got their point of view to put across.

"Clearly we've got some work to do but I'm pretty confident we'll get it done.

"Equally, we have a point of view that says we have to ensure the game has affordability across all levels. The players will be paid very well in the next phase of our negotiations but it might take some time to get to that agreement."

While the two viewpoints are oceans apart, there is now the issue of trust between the parties, even if Smith has welcomed a renewal of discussions with NRL powerbrokers.

"The NRL has spoken to clubs and given an idea to the public that that's not the case. I think we're not given the share of revenue the players deserve," Smith said.

"I must admit, the players are a bit unhappy at the way the NRL has approached discussions. We entered in with open arms but the NRL have taken a different line, which is very disappointing."

Greenberg said it was unfortunate the debate was being played out in public but said players would be paid at historically high levels under the next funding agreement.

"In the next round the players will be paid better than at any other time in the history of the game, as they should be. But we have to do is manage that affordability across the game.

"No one would argue that we need to invest more in grassroots, no one would argue that we have a number of areas where the game needs to invest wisely, the players are at the very top of that list."

Smith stopped short of calling for NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg and Australian Rugby League Commission boss John Grant to step aside but said he felt the game had more than enough funds to manage affairs under their proposal.

"Each year the game has only grown stronger every year that I've been involved in the sport, so that's working off the bare minimum of $400 million coming into the game.

"If you can't run a game with $192 million, that's fairly concerning. Is there the wrong administration in or are they spending money badly?"