Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Best have a look at the website ...


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 M Hopkins

M Hopkins
  • Moderator
  • 604 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

I heard he was still on the ST helens payroll

#42 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,290 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:58 PM

I heard he was still on the ST helens payroll


You heard wrong.
Posted Image

#43 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:00 PM

I haven't suggested that any club is formally a feeder club BSJ. However, as you know, Mr Duffy was reported as calling Dewsbury Rams a feeder club for the Bulls. It doesn't make them a feeder club' but it does help to create that impression. By comparison Mr Thewlis has been more careful and respectful with his language.

In the short term these deals may be very good for the Rams and the Bulldogs; but even if isn't the thin edge of the wedge with feeder status on its way down the line, just the idea in some minds that the Championship clubs are in some sense junior to the SL clubs is likely to effect crowd numbers in the long term.

You suggested on another thread that we should ignore ifs and buts and see how things pan out. Surely its' better to discuss any reservations. I see no harm in airing concerns even if they prove to be totally unfounded.


Indeed Bi11, and these developments concern me as much as anyone else. It's what I might call extrapolative speculation (phew!) that I think should be avoided - i.e. along the lines of if this happens then that, and that, and then this must happen, then we are all going to hell in a handcart etc. I like to deal with as near to facts as can be ascertained where possible.

I queried the use of "feeder" a little mischievously as there are still some posting on here who are trying to persuade themselves that Batley's arrangements with Fartown are different from all the other arrangements currently being made. The fine detail might differ but the thrust is exactly the same.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#44 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,444 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:32 AM

not exactly a whirl wind if the medical expenses is the best part of the deal.I hope not one of your players need this.

#45 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,444 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

not exactly a whirl wind if the medical expenses is the best part of the deal.I hope not one of your players need this.

#46 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:53 AM

Their Head Coach is a former employee of St Helens, not a current one.

It's fine to be concerned, but don't be panicking about stuff you might have misunderstood.


You can try and pretend things dont exist but the truth says otherwise! I think its you that has misunderstood as the St.Helens website clearly states that U20s Ian Talbot amongst other Saints coaches will be going to Rochdale http://www.saintsrlf.../news/page/2378 It even states in the Press release "As part of the move, Ian Talbot, our Under 20s coach, will be taking up the Head Coaching position at Rochdale....Ian, Glynn Walsh and Steve Prescott from Saints and Dave Ramsbottom from Rochdale will be retained to give the Hornets a strong coaching set up". You can live in a dream world but the championship is being made slowly into a feeder league. Small changes here and there have moved on to certain SL clubs taking over small championship clubs. There is every reason for genuine championship fans to be concerned as there are many things here at stake including the future of the championship not being a lottery and also it not becoming just a feeder league. Its clear you are pro. But many of us can see through the ######

#47 London Dick

London Dick
  • Coach
  • 1,381 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

So to summarise the club gets medical insurance for players that will prob cost the Giants around £25k plus and access to full time medical staff. This in itself is fantastic as player welfare should be too of the list. We also get chance to have players from hudds in a similar manner to recent seasons - wasn't Alex Brown on dual reg when he scored the winning try in NRC cup (no complaints then) and we had to pay for him then, now we get players for free.

I cannot see the problem. I think with some people the club can't do right for doing wrong. We would have been damned if we were the only ones not taking advantage
"If you want us to be the best and if you want us to beat the rest, a BISSA donation is what we need"

#48 DOGFATHER

DOGFATHER
  • Coach
  • 166 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:56 AM

i think everyone has blown this out of the window it's duel reg batley ain't a feeder club, it's like we can loan say murphy, Ferguson and fairbank if they work their way into our 17 for that weekends game but we can also have walmsley and fleming at the same and say maybe james green it doesn't have to be from one club. i trust john kear because he has batley instrests firsts


The thing is though, it is not like the old dual reg system, where clubs were taking young lads and giving them chance to develop and make a name for themselves. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen an age limit this time around, as we had with the dual reg system. The Giants have 30 players signed up for next season,

1. Scott Grix
2. Luke George
3. Joe Wardle
4. Leroy Cudjoe
5. Jermaine McGilvary
6. Danny Brough
7. Luke Robinson
8. Eorl Crabtree
9. Shaun Lunt
10. Craig Kopczak
11. Luke O'Donnel
12. Ukuma Ta'ai
13. Brett Ferres
14. David Faiumu
15. Keith Mason
16. Larne Patrick
17. Stuart Fielden
18. Jason Chan
19. Greg Eden
20. Michael Lawrence
21. Aaron Murphy
22. Dale Ferguson
23. Jacob Fairbank
24.Anthony Mullany
25. Matty Dawson
26. Jonny Molloy
27. Jamie Cording
28. Matthew Sarsfield
29. Josh Johnson
30. Ben Blackmore

Take out the 18 man matchday squad, will mean 12 players every week won't be getting a game.

Whichever way you cut it, most, if not all of these lads will be better than what we have signed on, otherwise why are they in SL and not the championship? So, in order to put the best 17 lads available on the park each week (which is in Batley's best interests) , JK will be selecting up to 5 of these guys to play for us, depending on the availability of Walmsley and Flemming each week.

In theory, we could have a must win match towards the end of the season, say against Halifax like last season for a home tie in the play-offs and Huddersfield have a nothing match against London or Widnes, what is to stop Huddersfield making Fielden, Patrick, Crabtree and Mason available to us? This is hardly fair on Halifax is it.

Likewise, we might be playing Hunslet at the end of the season in a game they must win to avoid relegation, in the same week, Leeds have a dead rubber game, there position in the league is secured, what is to stop Sinfield, Burrow, Watkins and Hall turning out for Hunslet against us, hardly fair on us is it?

I can already hear the cries of it will never happen, well what is to stop it? It is not inconceivable that this scenario will play out, especially when relegation to the bottom league is in the offing. SL clubs will want there players developing against the best possible standard of opposition, which means they want there guys in the Championship learning there trade. I can't see them developing much, playing teams like the Scholars, Gateshead or Scorpions week in week out.

Whilst I do not agree with these link-ups, if we do not follow suit, I don't really see how we could hope compete against other clubs who are making use of it.

Edited by DOGFATHER, 10 November 2012 - 10:06 AM.


#49 M Hopkins

M Hopkins
  • Moderator
  • 604 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:15 AM

These "partnerships". Do they have a duration? Will it be taken a season at a time or is that it now? We're linked up indefinitely or permanently? I think the club needs to make every detail of the partnership available for the fans.
Although I trust in JK what about after he's gone?

I can't help but think that getting new fans for championship clubs is going to be harder now. The championship is becoming more like a feeder league no-matter how you look at it. Ive even tried Gav Wilsons Rose tints and mis-information it doesn't help. Would love to be proved wrong.

Edited by M Hopkins, 10 November 2012 - 09:19 AM.


#50 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 10:20 AM

The thing is though, it is not like the old dual reg system, where clubs were taking young lads and giving them chance to develop and make a name for themselves. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen an age limit this time around, as we had with the dual reg system. The Giants have 30 players signed up for next season,

1. Scott Grix
2. Luke George
3. Joe Wardle
4. Leroy Cudjoe
5. Jermaine McGilvary
6. Danny Brough
7. Luke Robinson
8. Eorl Crabtree
9. Shaun Lunt
10. Craig Kopczak
11. Luke O'Donnel
12. Ukuma Ta'ai
13. Brett Ferres
14. David Faiumu
15. Keith Mason
16. Larne Patrick
17. Stuart Fielden
18. Jason Chan
19. Greg Eden
20. Michael Lawrence
21. Aaron Murphy
22. Dale Ferguson
23. Jacob Fairbank
24.Anthony Mullany
25. Matty Dawson
26. Jonny Molloy
27. Jamie Cording
28. Matthew Sarsfield
29. Josh Johnson
30. Ben Blackmore

Take out the 18 man matchday squad, will mean 12 players every week won't be getting a game.

Whichever way you cut it, most, if not all of these lads will be better than what we have signed on, otherwise why are they in SL and not the championship? So, in order to put the best 17 lads available on the park each week (which is in Batley's best interests) , JK will be selecting up to 5 of these guys to play for us, depending on the availability of Walmsley and Flemming each week.

In theory, we could have a must win match towards the end of the season, say against Halifax like last season for a home tie in the play-offs and Huddersfield have a nothing match against London or Widnes, what is to stop Huddersfield making Fielden, Patrick, Crabtree and Mason available to us? This is hardly fair on Halifax is it.

Likewise, we might be playing Hunslet at the end of the season in a game they must win to avoid relegation, in the same week, Leeds have a dead rubber game, there position in the league is secured, what is to stop Sinfield, Burrow, Watkins and Hall turning out for Hunslet against us, hardly fair on us is it?

I can already hear the cries of it will never happen, well what is to stop it? It is not inconceivable that this scenario will play out, especially when relegation to the bottom league is in the offing. SL clubs will want there players developing against the best possible standard of opposition, which means they want there guys in the Championship learning there trade. I can't see them developing much, playing teams like the Scholars, Gateshead or Scorpions week in week out.

Whilst I do not agree with these link-ups, if we do not follow suit, I don't really see how we could hope compete against other clubs who are making use of it.


As I understand it there are strict limitations on which players can be loaned to the CC club, these being defined by the number of previous SL appearances and inclusion in the SL registered squad. maybe someone with better access to the "rules" relating to these arrangements can elaborate.

Anyway the scenario that you present can't currently happen (see what i mean by extrapolation?) but, of course, that's not to say it never will.

The partnerships are established on a season by season basis and can be discontinued by either party. It will be very interesting/worrying to see how these develop over the coming season.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#51 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 10:40 AM

As I understand it there are strict limitations on which players can be loaned to the CC club, these being defined by the number of previous SL appearances and inclusion in the SL registered squad. maybe someone with better access to the "rules" relating to these arrangements can elaborate.

Anyway the scenario that you present can't currently happen (see what i mean by extrapolation?) but, of course, that's not to say it never will.

The partnerships are established on a season by season basis and can be discontinued by either party. It will be very interesting/worrying to see how these develop over the coming season.


It looks like the value of these players will become part of salary cap expenditure, which would limit their use.

And - of course - their usefulness to the $uperleague side.

So what are we gaining here, BJ Mather ? <_<
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#52 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,290 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:54 AM

These "partnerships". Do they have a duration? Will it be taken a season at a time or is that it now? We're linked up indefinitely or permanently? I think the club needs to make every detail of the partnership available for the fans.
Although I trust in JK what about after he's gone?

I can't help but think that getting new fans for championship clubs is going to be harder now. The championship is becoming more like a feeder league no-matter how you look at it. Ive even tried Gav Wilsons Rose tints and mis-information it doesn't help. Would love to be proved wrong.


What misinformation have I provided, exactly?

Ian Talbot no longer works for Saints, the U20s team he coached no longer exists.

I'm not fully pro partnership at all, I have my concerns too. I also have a sense of perspective which most folk seem to lack around these parts...

Oh, and York & Hull's partnership is for 3 seasons (unless either party want to call it off earlier). I'm not sure if anyone else has disclosed any timescales but I'd be surprised if anyone else went for longer.
Posted Image

#53 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:03 PM

It looks like the value of these players will become part of salary cap expenditure, which would limit their use.

And - of course - their usefulness to the $uperleague side.

So what are we gaining here, BJ Mather ? <_<


"We're" not really gaining anything, that's the point. The clear beneficiaries will be the SL clubs but as long as they say it will also benefit CC clubs then we will all go along with it, for our own good.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#54 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:17 PM

"We're" not really gaining anything, that's the point. The clear beneficiaries will be the SL clubs but as long as they say it will also benefit CC clubs then we will all go along with it, for our own good.


Let's not forget that BJ Mather doesn't work for a club. He works for the RFL and should have the whole of the game in mind.

What do we gain by reducing the player pool ..... to the game as a whole ?
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#55 DOGFATHER

DOGFATHER
  • Coach
  • 166 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 07:10 AM

As I understand it there are strict limitations on which players can be loaned to the CC club, these being defined by the number of previous SL appearances and inclusion in the SL registered squad. maybe someone with better access to the "rules" relating to these arrangements can elaborate.

Anyway the scenario that you present can't currently happen (see what i mean by extrapolation?) but, of course, that's not to say it never will.


Thanks for the info BSJ, have the all the rules governing the link ups been published anywhere? Griff, you seem quite well informed too, can you tell me where you got your info from? I do try to keep abreast of things regarding the game and I have looked, but I must be missing them. There are an awful lot of rumours flying about regarding the effects of the link-ups on the salary cap, how many players teams are allowed to field etc. but nobody seems to have all the facts or information.

I would have thought something as revolutionary as this, especially a change so "supposedly" good for the game, would be emblazoned all over the RFL website and in the press. The governing body is very quick to tell us all how great the Magic weekend is, and what a marvellous job they have done in expanding the game in London. However on this subject, factual information is very conspicuous by its absence, no press release, nothing even on there own website, it all seems a little strange to me.

There are press releases from individual clubs, but they are hardly going to highlight the fact that they have become a feeder club for SL, (even if they had) as fans would be walking away in there droves. My scepticism about the link-ups stems from the lack of information regarding the whole subject, and partly due to the amount of talk over recent times from certain SL corners, about turning the CH in to a feeder league, these link-ups all appear to pointing in that direction, however I do stress only appear to be pointing in that direction and I could be way off the mark.

Gav, you seem very quick to point out that supporters are being silly and irrational for having concerns. You appear to be happy telling everyone how positive and good for the game these link ups are. Maybe they are, certainly for the likes of York and Hunslet, (no disrespect intended) I can see the benefits, we would have welcomed it a couple of seasons back before Harrison joined as coach, when we could not envisage competing with the top teams in the division. The influx of a few dual reg lads will make these teams more competitive than they otherwise would be.

However, as far as I can see your just spouting 'positive' conjecture on the subject. You may be just as wide of the mark as some of the sceptical points of view I have on the subject. I haven't seen any hard evidence from you to back this up. Yet you spout like your information is gospel, maybe you can point me in the direction of the rules and regs governing these partnerships? Maybe, if us sceptics understood all the facts that you obviously have at your disposal, we might not be as wary as we are.

Edited by DOGFATHER, 11 November 2012 - 09:43 AM.


#56 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:04 AM

Thanks for the info BSJ, have the all the rules governing the link ups been published anywhere? Griff, you seem quite well informed too, can you tell me where you got your info from? I do try to keep abreast of things regarding the game and I have looked, but I must be missing them.


Most of what I post is publicly available. I try to read all the RFL statements though, and not just the condensed version you get in the press, and make up my own mind rather than be told what a Good Thing it will be.

For instance, Gav Wilson tells us that Dual Registration is a Good Thing for the game. I simply wonder how scrapping $uperleague's Reserve Grade in favour of a system where up to five players may be seconded to another club and - at the whim of the coach of that club - may or may not play is in any shape or form Progression.
"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users