203 replies to this topic

[marklaspalmas]

We still had him on DR though, pointless as it turned out to be.

I agree about the difference between DR and loans. I was also under the impression that Jack was on DR last season, but I'm happy to stand corrected.

Aye.

TBH I think we'll have to wait and see how this new system works out. I would say at this point the chances of it working out well are NOT good, for the following reasons.

1. It's not been thought through properly because it's only been introduced to save SL clubs cash. No-one is sure the effects on salary cap, playoff eligabilty issues, etc.

2. It will cause disruption to Championship teams who won't know who is in their squad on a month to month (or even week to week) basis. A side with five nearSL standard players will be a different proposition to that same side without the five. The credibility of the Championship is undermined.

3. It won't help the development of players at SL clubs from 16 to 21. Play scholarship at 16, then huge 3 year jump to academy mixing with 19 year olds, then farmed out to open age Championship club. How is that a clear pathway of development?

[marklaspalmas]

Didn't he play in the first league fixture or was it a friendly?

Had a run round in a friendly and went back to Wakey.

If most loans next year are to be DR type, and it appears that is what they will be, then I think the Championship will be a total mess. Just to save SL clubs a few quid. What a shame.

[Griff]

So basically it's one or two CC clubs whinging about their own problems at the expense of the wider game?

Thought so.

Wider game ? By which you mean 14 (maybe less) $uperleague clubs, I take it.

[Griff]

What this boils down to is ... what was up with the loan system ? Minimum of a month, only registered with one club at a time .... coaches knew where they were with that.

Now we've got a system where a player might be available, might not .... how can a coach plan with that ?

One advantage - it creates a need for the play-off system. Any twinned club could be world beaters one week and dogpoop the next.

Edited by Griff, 09 November 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Terry Mullaney]

So basically it's one or two CC clubs whinging about their own problems at the expense of the wider game?

Thought so.

Congratulations. You've won a prize for the daftest comment ever to appear on this forum. Suggest you do a bit of homework on these clubs and discover what they've achieved for the good of the wider game and without central funding.

[The Parksider]

Now we've got a system where a player might be available, might not .... how can a coach plan with that ?

It can't work on the past record of the DR shambles to date.

The players who are signed need to be signed for the full season.

Eaton said "From the discussions we have had with Leeds we are not looking to borrow players, it's not a case of fringe players not getting a game coming to us, it's doing a LOT MORE than that".

So although he does not fully explain the deal he does intimate it's something a lot more solid.

It could be argued that if the two clubs are linked to create one player pathway then if you are one of the players Leeds don't want to release at 19 because potential is there, then you play on in the Leeds "A" team, who are Hunslet.

You are not in a position to be "called back" anywhere, you are in the Leeds player development system all along......

Edited by The Parksider, 09 November 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Railway End]

The decision to cut 2 junior teams from each SL side in an attempt to save money will set the game back 10 years or so in my opinion.

If we had a governing body that had any balls this ridiculous idea would have been nipped in the bud when first suggested. The amount of money for Academies and Scholarship programmes needs to be increased not decreased, how else are we going to keep up with Australia & New Zealand at international level?

Something that annoyed me regarding this situation was Leeds Rhinos (who I understand were one of the major players in pushing for the 20's to be scrapped) have signed an untried Aussie with about three NRL appearances to his name for next season. Even if he receives a modest salary, when air fares, housing, cars etc are paid, for the long term benefit of the club, would this money not be better utilised for junior player development?

[keighley]

The decision to cut 2 junior teams from each SL side in an attempt to save money will set the game back 10 years or so in my opinion.

If we had a governing body that had any balls this ridiculous idea would have been nipped in the bud when first suggested. The amount of money for Academies and Scholarship programmes needs to be increased not decreased, how else are we going to keep up with Australia & New Zealand at international level?

I agree with you on these points. If the Australian was all that, he would be tied up to an NRL contract. There must be someone in the whole of the UK, who has just as much potential and would cost a fraction of the expense that this is costing Leeds.

The only signings we should be making from the NRL are top class marquee players and with their new found riches, we cannot afford them. Scrap this feeder nonsense, keep your reserve teams in SL and economise on overseas signings by eliminating 98% of them.

If your junior system gives you a surplus of players and you need to loan then to CC clubs, the fine, but keep the junior teams at the SL clubs that are being scapped.

Something that annoyed me regarding this situation was Leeds Rhinos (who I understand were one of the major players in pushing for the 20's to be scrapped) have signed an untried Aussie with about three NRL appearances to his name for next season. Even if he receives a modest salary, when air fares, housing, cars etc are paid, for the long term benefit of the club, would this money not be better utilised for junior player development?

[keighley]

I have no idea how my post enede up in the middle of the one I was replying to. My apologies.

[The Parksider]

The decision to cut 2 junior teams from each SL side in an attempt to save money will set the game back 10 years or so in my opinion.If we had a governing body that had any balls this ridiculous idea would have been nipped in the bud when first suggested. The amount of money for Academies and Scholarship programmes needs to be increased not decreased, how else are we going to keep up with Australia & New Zealand at international level?

Something that annoyed me regarding this situation was Leeds Rhinos have signed an untried Aussie with about three NRL appearances to his name for next season. Would this money not be better utilised for junior player development?

It depends on what you mean by "junior development"?

For me you can fill several teams below the first team with players and throw as much money as you want at it, but if there are not that many talented players being created in Junior Rugby League to feed this system then the returns on the money invested are poor.

It's my opinion but I'd like to hear more opinions on this that we need thousands more kids playing RL rather than throwing thousands more at the same small number.

I think it's terrible what Leeds are doing...

Or is it "have had to do".

Perhaps so many kids play RL in Australia that many of their "surplus players"are better than our developing players??

Can money open up more junior RL clubs? I think it needs the volunteers first and foremost.

[tim2]

It depends on what you mean by "junior development"?

For me you can fill several teams below the first team with players and throw as much money as you want at it, but if there are not that many talented players being created in Junior Rugby League to feed this system then the returns on the money invested are poor.

It's my opinion but I'd like to hear more opinions on this that we need thousands more kids playing RL rather than throwing thousands more at the same small number.

I think it's terrible what Leeds are doing...

Or is it "have had to do".

Perhaps so many kids play RL in Australia that many of their "surplus players"are better than our developing players??

Can money open up more junior RL clubs? I think it needs the volunteers first and foremost.

Well said. The scholarship system is a mess too - all these power games at pro level are harming grassroots rugby.

[Railway End]

It depends on what you mean by "junior development"?

For me you can fill several teams below the first team with players and throw as much money as you want at it, but if there are not that many talented players being created in Junior Rugby League to feed this system then the returns on the money invested are poor.

It's my opinion but I'd like to hear more opinions on this that we need thousands more kids playing RL rather than throwing thousands more at the same small number.

I think it's terrible what Leeds are doing...

Or is it "have had to do".

Perhaps so many kids play RL in Australia that many of their "surplus players"are better than our developing players??

Can money open up more junior RL clubs? I think it needs the volunteers first and foremost.

Good points well made Parksider.

My take on the junior set up at clubs is that if they are going to do it then do it properly without cutting corners. I would rather see no overseas players in our leagues and let the money be channelled into the Scholarships/Acadamies and amateur local junior clubs. Obviously standards would initially decline but in the longer term maybe we could start to challenge the Aussies again.

Its the old saying, to be strong at the top you need to be stronger at the bottom.

Clubs can start picking up lads for their Scholarship teams from the age of 14. Are they saying that after 5 or 6 years of going through their own tailor made system that too few of them are good enough to make it to first team football to make it viable? Surely that is more of a sad indictment on the clubs than the young lads.

[The Parksider]

1. I would rather see no overseas players in our leagues and let the money be channelled into the Scholarships/Acadamies and amateur local junior clubs. Obviously standards would initially decline but in the longer term maybe we could start to challenge the Aussies again.

2. Clubs can start picking up lads for their Scholarship teams from the age of 14. Are they saying that after 5 or 6 years of going through their own tailor made system that too few of them are good enough to make it to first team football to make it viable? Surely that is more of a sad indictment on the clubs than the young lads.

1. The overseas players are paid for by Superleague club income. There's a strong argument that the overseas players make the standard of Superleague stronger and give the game an element of a glamour or international image. I think players say at Leeds like Webb, Lautiti, Donald,Leuluai are great value for money and add to the appeal and image of the game.

Those resentful often speak of "second rate Aussies" keeping out our stars of tommorrow. I wholeheartedly disagree. We simply do not have talent better than these players. If we send them back the wages we save will have to pay for the British replacements. I don't think SL can afford to cut salaries and throw the money at Junior development. It needs organisation more than money throwing at it.

2. I don't with respect recognise the idea that if you have a 14 year old and he goes through a six year development process then it's a failure of the system if he does not turn out to be a good professional.

In my area of Leeds, a staunch Rhinos supporting area we have two big junior soccer clubs playing out of 10 age ranges with two teams an age range. That's 40 teams with squads averaging 15 players that's 600 kids playing soccer, we have one Union side with a junior section, probably 150 players.

No kid in my area plays RL in a local junior side

This is probably why Leeds have to import players and why they can't find a local center good enough.

Don't get me wrong the game is played in one of the schools and Jodie Broughton took it up and had to go to Queens to advance his interest in the game. he's now an England player, but that was luck rather than organisation.

But I am firmly in support of organising things in and around Leeds so there's one big club that attracts the kids interest because they are on telly and they have "stars" and big crowds watch them. Then they interact with all the schools and development officers, give local RL enthusiasts support to start kids teams out of school, have the SL club interact with that set up and let the elite flow through the final development bit and the best end up full pros.

I think this partly happens. Most British SL players come from areas where there's an SL club, probably because that generates the interest, the ambition and the organisation to harness it. But clearly the number of kids who take up RL in this country is miniscule, and that's why we struggle for talent........

[Marauder]

Aye.

TBH I think we'll have to wait and see how this new system works out. I would say at this point the chances of it working out well are NOT good, for the following reasons.

1. It's not been thought through properly because it's only been introduced to save SL clubs cash. No-one is sure the effects on salary cap, playoff eligabilty issues, etc.

2. It will cause disruption to Championship teams who won't know who is in their squad on a month to month (or even week to week) basis. A side with five nearSL standard players will be a different proposition to that same side without the five. The credibility of the Championship is undermined.

3. It won't help the development of players at SL clubs from 16 to 21. Play scholarship at 16, then huge 3 year jump to academy mixing with 19 year olds, then farmed out to open age Championship club. How is that a clear pathway of development?

3, Thats why the RFL have taken control of the NCL

Edited by Marauder, 10 November 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Griff]

I have no idea how my post enede up in the middle of the one I was replying to. My apologies.

Stuck your cursor in the wrong place, pal. Why not go back and edit your post ?

[Griff]

You are not in a position to be "called back" anywhere, you are in the Leeds player development system all along......

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Marauder]

It can't work on the past record of the DR shambles to date.

The players who are signed need to be signed for the full season.

Eaton said "From the discussions we have had with Leeds we are not looking to borrow players, it's not a case of fringe players not getting a game coming to us, it's doing a LOT MORE than that".

So although he does not fully explain the deal he does intimate it's something a lot more solid.

It could be argued that if the two clubs are linked to create one player pathway then if you are one of the players Leeds don't want to release at 19 because potential is there, then you play on in the Leeds "A" team, who are Hunslet.

You are not in a position to be "called back" anywhere, you are in the Leeds player development system all along......

But will it work that way and will Hunslet etc stop looking at their own development to cut their own costs?

[Griff]

But will it work that way and will Hunslet etc stop looking at their own development to cut their own costs?

What do you mean ? Do they still have a development programme ?

[The Parksider]

But will it work that way and will Hunslet etc stop looking at their own development to cut their own costs?

We had no real junior development system AFAIK, year on year it was a matter of scraping a few quid together and buying a semi pro squad. You would not believe how skint the club was. Hunslet Warriors were far more vibrant that us.

These changes give us a development system of real note, we have had to sell our soul for it though!!

[keighley]

1. The overseas players are paid for by Superleague club income. There's a strong argument that the overseas players make the standard of Superleague stronger and give the game an element of a glamour or international image. I think players say at Leeds like Webb, Lautiti, Donald,Leuluai are great value for money and add to the appeal and image of the game.

Those resentful often speak of "second rate Aussies" keeping out our stars of tommorrow. I wholeheartedly disagree. We simply do not have talent better than these players. If we send them back the wages we save will have to pay for the British replacements. I don't think SL can afford to cut salaries and throw the money at Junior development. It needs organisation more than money throwing at it.

2. I don't with respect recognise the idea that if you have a 14 year old and he goes through a six year development process then it's a failure of the system if he does not turn out to be a good professional.

In my area of Leeds, a staunch Rhinos supporting area we have two big junior soccer clubs playing out of 10 age ranges with two teams an age range. That's 40 teams with squads averaging 15 players that's 600 kids playing soccer, we have one Union side with a junior section, probably 150 players.

No kid in my area plays RL in a local junior side

This is probably why Leeds have to import players and why they can't find a local center good enough.

Don't get me wrong the game is played in one of the schools and Jodie Broughton took it up and had to go to Queens to advance his interest in the game. he's now an England player, but that was luck rather than organisation.

But I am firmly in support of organising things in and around Leeds so there's one big club that attracts the kids interest because they are on telly and they have "stars" and big crowds watch them. Then they interact with all the schools and development officers, give local RL enthusiasts support to start kids teams out of school, have the SL club interact with that set up and let the elite flow through the final development bit and the best end up full pros.

I think this partly happens. Most British SL players come from areas where there's an SL club, probably because that generates the interest, the ambition and the organisation to harness it. But clearly the number of kids who take up RL in this country is miniscule, and that's why we struggle for talent........

I fully agree with you that the top overseas stars you mention are an assets and star attractions to the game in this country and their presence here is well worth their costs. However, some of the lesser lights from overseas, are being brought in and they may or may not turn out to be great successes and there might be equally as talented Britsih players, who would cost less because there are no housing or travel costs involved. Also they are likely to remain in the British game for a much longer time than the imports.

The other group of overseas players that would seem to be a non productive use of money are the older players who come over here for a last hurragh. Great for them but not such a great return on the large investment accrued by the british clubs.

I do not advocate eliminating the top stars from out game but these other two categories of overseas players could be eliminated and the funds saved invested in the British game and players for a better return on the capital expended.

This latest recruit by Leeds is a case in point. He has only played 4 or 5 NRL games. He may or may not turn out to be a great player but you take the same chance with an English prospect and the expenses are much less. I would hazard a guess that had this recruit not been born over here he would never had received immigration permsission for a work permit such is the paucity of his professional experience.

By not recruiting lesser or unproven and aged players the money saved could be funnelled into all the initiatives you describe in point 2 of your post.