203 replies to this topic

[Terry Mullaney]

They aren't top level players though. They are players at a top level club.

All the truly top level players will be retained.

The theory of losing all the top level players due to these academy changes is an absolute myth.

Presumably then the five players farmed out in season one are top level prospects? What happens to this batch in year two when another five are ready to take the step up to first team level at the Championship club? Will they all be ready for SL after just one season of first team football? If not what happens to them? Where will they play if the SL has no under 20's team?

Edited by Terry Mullaney, 13 November 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[Keith T]

I think it is time that the RFL started to put some regulations out covering all the aspects of this new system as it just seems to be getting made on the hoof at present!!!! Mr Kear is delighted to get the Giants to include the Batley players in their BUPA private medical scheme which is great for them but does that not now give Batley extra income by not having to pay for this themselves and therefore could affect the percentage of income for salary cap purposes!!! It is a can of worms.

If the SL clubs want the Championship clubs to keep their fringe players match fit then let they fork out some of the money they are supposedly saving to cover the cost of each Championship team to run an "A" team to keep their fringe players match fit when they can't get a game for SL club players!!

[The Parksider]

With the pathway now narrowed, are we accepting that we can afford to miss the late developers such as Peacock and the ones missed by SL clubs such as Hardacre?

I dunno Terry. Re: Peacock - I thought that the changes will still allow late developers with them going into open age in the Championship - didn't Peacock develop late in the Championship. What's the problem? Anyone comment on this???

Re: Hardaker - I dunno again. I suspect that there are a lot of talented players lost to the game through various reasons, but I don't see what these changes have to do with. It's a lot of money for Fev to run an academy year after year after year and say it was worth it because of one player, especially one who swanned off to SL.

[The Parksider]

I think SL (clubs)hey sign players because they are top class prospects.

They have compromised by keeping the very best of their recruits by farming them out to feeder clubs, whilst jettisoning the rest to save money. They will miss some top players I think.

How many kids a year do SL clubs sign and how many actually make it into the first team regularly.

Think about it.

How are the two clubs, and two coaching teams going to "miss" any of the small number of outstanding players???

The SL system signs them up at 15 and they can go on to play for the CC club until they are 35 can't they.

Even the latest developer can transfer back from Hunslet for his SL debut.

[keighley]

How many kids a year do SL clubs sign and how many actually make it into the first team regularly.

Think about it.

How are the two clubs, and two coaching teams going to "miss" any of the small number of outstanding players???

The SL system signs them up at 15 and they can go on to play for the CC club until they are 35 can't they.

Even the latest developer can transfer back from Hunslet for his SL debut.

I do not know the answer to your question but I accept that some will fail to make the grade. The only ones the coaching staff get to follow though are the ones retained and the ones at Hunslet. the rest will be lost to the game. I think they will release some probable SL prospects, who were off form or injured or had not matured to the best level when the cuts were made.

Previously this would not have happened before the decisions to eliminate some development teams from the system. I am not saying I am right but eliminating playing positions does not seem to be a good idea. If they had no choice due to finances then so be it but if they are doing it just tobe cheap, i think it s a mistake.

[Terry Mullaney]

I dunno Terry. Re: Peacock - I thought that the changes will still allow late developers with them going into open age in the Championship - didn't Peacock develop late in the Championship. What's the problem? Anyone comment on this???

Re: Hardaker - I dunno again. I suspect that there are a lot of talented players lost to the game through various reasons, but I don't see what these changes have to do with. It's a lot of money for Fev to run an academy year after year after year and say it was worth it because of one player, especially one who swanned off to SL.

The Rovers under 18 Academy is in its infancy Parky, there'll be others to follow Hardaker. I could name a couple of certs right now who will grace the game at top level and several others who'll do the business at Championship level. So I'd say yes it's worth the time and investment.

Re the Peacocks, Harrisons, Farrars, Thompsons (he didn't start playing until he was 19) etc of this world who were all internationals but developed late, I posed a question in post no 101 which hasn't been responded to yet. Are the Championship clubs going to snap up all of the unwanted SL youngsters year on year? As far as I can see the first quality batch of five will have just one season to prove themselves, that's if they're selected of course by the championship coach, before another batch emerge the following season and so on year on year. I really don't see how the system can work unless the quota of five is increased considerably after year one. When that happens, which it surely will, we are well and truly into the realms of feeder clubs.

[Griff]

The Rovers under 18 Academy is in its infancy Parky, there'll be others to follow Hardaker. I could name a couple of certs right now who will grace the game at top level and several others who'll do the business at Championship level. So I'd say yes it's worth the time and investment.

Is it, Terry ? Times change and there are now no compensations in the form of transfer fees (well, not often). How much will it cost to run the Featherstone Academy for, say, five years and how much revenue will you make from it ? Is Featherstone Rovers so profitable that they can afford that level of expenditure (rhetorical question) ?

Players need to be produced and developed - but it's not a money-spinner.

Edited by Griff, 14 November 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Terry Mullaney]

Is it, Terry ? Times change and there are now no compensations in the form of transfer fees (well, not often). How much will it cost to run the Featherstone Academy for, say, five years and how much revenue will you make from it ? Is Featherstone Rovers so profitable that they can afford that level of expenditure (rhetorical question) ?

Players need to be produced and developed - but it's not a money-spinner.

I think Featherstone Rovers are part of rugby league for all the right reasons and that's why they're doing this. Many clubs could learn a lot from the culture at Post Office Road. And by the way I understand Rovers received £80K for Zak.

Edited by Terry Mullaney, 14 November 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Griff]

I think Featherstone Rovers are part of rugby league for all the right reasons Parky and that's why they're doing this. Many clubs could learn a lot from the culture at Post Office Road. And by the way I understand Rovers received £80K for Zak.

I agree that it should be done. If we don't there'll be no decent players around.

What I'm saying is it doesn't make money. Rovers might have received £80k for Zak but, on the other hand, he could have waited until his contract ran out and have gone for nothing. He couldn't have done that pre-Bosman.

Maybe we should create some sort of funding scheme along the lines of the CITB - clubs pay a levy, produce a player you get a grant.

[Terry Mullaney]

I agree that it should be done. If we don't there'll be no decent players around.

What I'm saying is it doesn't make money. Rovers might have received £80k for Zak but, on the other hand, he could have waited until his contract ran out and have gone for nothing. He couldn't have done that pre-Bosman.

Maybe we should create some sort of funding scheme along the lines of the CITB - clubs pay a levy, produce a player you get a grant.

That sounds like a really good idea Griff. Presumably the SL clubs would be the ones paying into the levy fund and the grant forthcoming when the player sees out his Championship contract? I agree that what Rovers and Sheffield are doing doesn't make money but what does in RL? The two clubs are busting a gut to do the right thing by the sport and others would do well to follow their example.

[The Parksider]

1. The Rovers under 18 Academy is in its infancy Parky, there'll be others to follow Hardaker. I could name a couple of certs right now who will grace the game at top level and several others who'll do the business at Championship level. So I'd say yes it's worth the time and investment.

1. Are the Championship clubs going to snap up all of the unwanted SL youngsters year on year? As far as I can see the first quality batch of five will have just one season to prove themselves, that's if they're selected of course by the championship coach, before another batch emerge the following season and so on year on year. I really don't see how the system can work unless the quota of five is increased considerably after year one. When that happens, which it surely will, we are well and truly into the realms of feeder clubs.

1. I would certainly agree if you were rightly recompensed for anyone who went to SL, but don't forget to recompense the amateur club will you Come on Mr. M. how much did they get for Zac???

2. This is the whole point of "Eaton speaks" so well spotted after 110 posts

The press release is "don't worry it's just a few dual registration players" but Barry can't have been briefed by the press department. He said this is more than giving fringe players a game "WE WANT TO CREATE A PLAYER PATHWAY FOR BOTH CLUBS" the better players to Leeds and the ones not quite good enough coming to Hunslet.

SO Hunslet get five players say, and another five in the second year and another five in the third year, If they run on a squad of 25 then by year three they may have 15 players who have come from Leeds and five of them in their 3rd. year. By this time they will be looking at releasing two or three of them and maybe two or three of their own and maybe Leeds will have signed one who late developed.

So all things being even in time(and in theory) Hunslet receive 5 players from Leeds each year and release five players. in a system which could keep a Leeds player at Hunslet for 5 years. So If a 19 year old Jimmy Thompson comes along at Leeds they can stick him in the Hunslet team until he's learnt his trade and go propping for Leeds at 24.

Well and truly a feeder club my good sir.....

[The Parksider]

I know a number of lads who were academy players or at least on the books of a pro club who have walked away from the game. One of them was Gareth Widdop! But of course he will never make it at the top level will he . You think he is the only one who gave it up and would never have made it? There is actually especially forwards who mature often later in their career. Jamie Peacock was an average player who didnt really start shining until well after being 20 years old. Karl Harrison a former England prop mentioned this and he reckoned he would not have been kept on and likely would have drifted out the game. And what about the late comers that come in and need time to show what they can do.

Given your experience would a Hunslet club operating such that they only take Leeds players at 19, in the model suggested above actually accommodate the sort of players you speak of?

A Jamie Peacock may not be that great at 19 and not get immediately signed but a few years at Hunslet may see the lad right???

Edited by The Parksider, 14 November 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[Griff]

That sounds like a really good idea Griff. Presumably the SL clubs would be the ones paying into the levy fund and the grant forthcoming when the player sees out his Championship contract? I agree that what Rovers and Sheffield are doing doesn't make money but what does in RL? The two clubs are busting a gut to do the right thing by the sport and others would do well to follow their example.

I'm not against pinching ideas off anyone .......

[Lounge Room Lizard]

Given your experience would a Hunslet club operating such that they only take Leeds players at 19, in the model suggested above actually accommodate the sort of players you speak of?

A Jamie Peacock may not be that great at 19 and not get immediately signed but a few years at Hunslet may see the lad right???

Many players now go to Australia or play Union and earn good money as well as see the world. Both offer far more opportunity than playing for Hunslet or whoever part time. The option given to play PT rugby for Hunslet compared to the chance to play and see the world is clear for most. I know a lad who had played at Leeds Academy and is now out in the USA playing Union earning good money and has a decent job after turning down offers from both Sl and Championship clubs back in 2006. I know of a number that have gone to play in France or Australia or gone to play Union even in places like Germany where they can earn more money than any Championship team can offer them. Jimmy Keinhorst played Union in Heidelberg for a year and even though was 19 at the time he got free housing, free food, free transport and got many other benefits. Warren Heilig who is now developing League in Norway was also in Heidelberg a few years back and got very good money. The problem is its OK being sent out to Hunslet or wherever but a player may think sod that I can earn more money and travel playing Union or decide to go to Australia or France to play. But Hunslet may decide not to play him and he gets no game time at Leeds so earns no money and drifts away from the game. Many reasons why I feel its not right to simply send 5 guys to Hunslet and jack the rest off.

My main problem with it is the short term thinking of it all. Academy training and investment is vital for the standards to improve. And often the academy can make or break a player. Some academy lads are still kids and still learning but have massive raw talent even at the cut off age around 19/20 years old. Will somebody risk given that raw talent a chance? Some will but many wont and that talent then stops playing League. And its not just about the couple of lads that do make it in SL. Its about raising the standards of all players and if they do go back to the amateur game they are a way better player. We moan about SL being a poor standard, which it is compared to the NRL. We moan about Wales, France etc not being good enough. Yet the chance to improve the whole squad and depth not just at Sl but in other areas we shut down. The very place and chance where these kids should be to improve and learn to become not just better players, but more mature people we close down the avenue for many of them to improve. How will Wales improve or match England when most if not all will be part time players. The more academy places open the more chance Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French kids have of making it. Some players take way more time than others. Some players like Simon Haughton for Wigan was great as a young player but then just disappeared or never really kicked on.

[Terry Mullaney]

1. I would certainly agree if you were rightly recompensed for anyone who went to SL, but don't forget to recompense the amateur club will you Come on Mr. M. how much did they get for Zac???

2. This is the whole point of "Eaton speaks" so well spotted after 110 posts

The press release is "don't worry it's just a few dual registration players" but Barry can't have been briefed by the press department. He said this is more than giving fringe players a game "WE WANT TO CREATE A PLAYER PATHWAY FOR BOTH CLUBS" the better players to Leeds and the ones not quite good enough coming to Hunslet.

SO Hunslet get five players say, and another five in the second year and another five in the third year, If they run on a squad of 25 then by year three they may have 15 players who have come from Leeds and five of them in their 3rd. year. By this time they will be looking at releasing two or three of them and maybe two or three of their own and maybe Leeds will have signed one who late developed.

So all things being even in time(and in theory) Hunslet receive 5 players from Leeds each year and release five players. in a system which could keep a Leeds player at Hunslet for 5 years. So If a 19 year old Jimmy Thompson comes along at Leeds they can stick him in the Hunslet team until he's learnt his trade and go propping for Leeds at 24.

Well and truly a feeder club my good sir.....

My information is that Rovers received £80K for Zak as I mentioned above in another post. It didn't take me 101 posts for the penny to drop, I asked the very same question weeks ago when the first partnership thread appeared. You are the only one to answer it after all this time and you're right we are sadly witnessing the evolvement of a feeder system in professional RL. Hunslet will be Hunslet in name only and the same goes for the others who have resigned themselves to an existence of mediocrity.

[Steve Slater]

Hunslet, either the club or the surrounding area, has been a feeder club, or feeder area since the late sixties, or maybe even further back. First Hunslet Juniors, and then Hunslet Parkside have always produce outstanding youngsters that have signed for other clubs rather than stay in South Leeds, and many have gone to the Loiners, who never bothered to develop decent junior teams themselves but waited to poach the cream from Hunslet, Fev, and other prolific nurseries. I often wonder if the fortunes of both clubs would have been different today if Hunslet had been called Leeds and the Rhinos had been called Headingley when they first formed?
At least now Hunslet might get some benefit, they might get some ex-Parkside Juniors back, and they might get an increase in crowds from Rhinos supporters. Most of them can easily catch a bus to Dewsbury Road, but I'm not sure how Widnes supporters are going to get to Workington?

[The Parksider]

My information is that Rovers received £80K for Zak

Yes we hard that, what we didn't hear is what Rovers gave to Zacs amateur club.

[The Parksider]

Hunslet, either the club or the surrounding area, has been a feeder club, or feeder area since the late sixties, or maybe even further back. First Hunslet Juniors, and then Hunslet Parkside have always produce outstanding youngsters that have signed for other clubs rather than stay in South Leeds, and many have gone to the Loiners, who never bothered to develop decent junior teams themselves but waited to poach the cream from Hunslet,

In 1965 Hunslet were close to winning the cup with a team much like Featherstone's cup winning team 1983.

Only after financial collapse did players leave the area for money, apart from the odd ones like Bernard Prior and Brian Shaw

We ran a schools RL from which a junior side was fed and then an intermediates side. This fed the first team.

Leeds ran exactly the same set up so they developed kids in exactly the same way. You must be fair here.

The problem for Leeds was far far too many schools in north Leeds would only play union

However Leeds always had the money and we didn't after 1965 so they had the power to buy players

We were never a "feeder club" just to them though as once transport became cheap and easy quality Hunslet lads didn't even go to our junior system and Schoey and Jason Robbo didn't even bother with Leeds, skerrett and Nickle never went there.

That's the history Steve, sadly I'm old enough to have lived every minute of it mate!

Edited by The Parksider, 15 November 2012 - 07:20 AM.

[Griff]

Actually, the M62 made a huge difference to player mobility. Pre M62, players tended to play for local clubs largely because they couldn't travel far to training after work.

[del capo]

Yes we hard that, what we didn't hear is what Rovers gave to Zacs amateur club.

Featherstone Lions will have received compensation of £100. Rhinos should have paid them a further £350 after 10 superleague appearances.

And that's it....

Great way to encourage the grassroots , without which you could simply forget SL , Championship, Academy , Scholarship et al .......