53 replies to this topic

[keighley]

You flatter Doncaster,

i said MOST EVERYONE else is doing it, the competitors I reffered to are not Fev, Fax Leigh and co. more like Hunslet, Workington, Swinton, Doncaster, York and Haven
Donny have just been promoted, lets not get carried away, its really looking like 2 leagues within a league.

Fair enough. Watch out for Dewsbury. They could be the big improvers this next season.

[The Parksider]

Fair enough.

At last, you've accepted your getting carried away....

[keighley]

At last, you've accepted your getting carried away....

No I havn't accepted any such thing. I have my opinion of these feeder club deals and timhammonds has his. Neither one of us yet knows which scenario will be proven correct. As I have said on a couple of occasions, time will tell.

[Marauder]

That's a logical take on the feeder team scenario and here might be a lot of truth in it. It's my fear though that rather than what you see happening what will really happen is that if Doncaster are challenging for honours in the CC, using the loan players, that challenge will be ruined on th spot with no regard for the Doncaster club by Wakefield deciding they will rdecall those players because they need them or just because they can.

Another negative for me is that if Doncaster see some promising juniors from their area and afre thinking to sign them, they may not as they can save the expense and risk by just waiting for the next crop of loanees from Wakefield. Furthermore if any of Doncaster's own players look like being SL quality, the cosy arrangements with Wakefield will have them signed for the SL club with little or no remuneration coming to Doncaster and further weakening the Doncaster team.

On a final note, most of Doncaster's major competitors are not taking the SL shilling. Fev, Halifax, Leigh, Sheffield and Keighley are going it alone.

I hope you afre right and the arrangements are mutually beneficial to both clubs but I have my doubts. Time will tell.

Watch out for 14 year-old Jared Roach.

[weloveyouwakefield2]

Brough did leave for nothing. As did Tom Lineham, who came through the Knights scholarship program.

The best players will always end up in SuperLeague so I don't have an issue with it. At least this way York actually get something out of the deal.

Brough started at Wakefield (apt really) and left us for nothing too

[Keith T]

The big disappointment for me with these clubs linking is that there is no uniformity in the deals that are being struck and there does not appear to be any set rules other than the Championship club can use up to 5 SL players on dual registration.

Deals such as the Giants including the Batley players in their BUPA medical scheme seems to be a one off and obviously gives Batley an advantage because that is money they will not have to spend themselves. Other deals like Rochdale with Saints have seen the Under 20's coach from Saints who would have no team to coach at Saints become the coach of Rochdale with two other members of the Saints coaching staff assisting him. Other clubs can pop down the road and use the SL clubs facilities and staff, etc, whilst others because of the distance between their club and their SL twin can only hope that they can have the loan of 5 decent players who will not get tired of travelling each week for training and home matches.

Many Championship clubs have accepted this arrangement mainly because of the 5 players they could get to add to their squad and also because they didn't want to be left out after the initial Leeds/Hunslet link was arranged. For teams like Workington it means that by adding the 5 Widnes players to our squad we have more money available to pay the travel bills, etc, in order to remain solvent and even once again hopefully show a working profit.

It will be interesting to see how some of these links unfold but because there are so many variations in what is available, etc, I cannot accept that integrity of the Championship competition has not been affected.

[barrowraiderskid]

Let's say a club is not in a partnership what are the rules on the DR players and loan players they're allowed?

[thundergaz]

Let's say a club is not in a partnership what are the rules on the DR players and loan players they're allowed?

If your club isn't linked with a SL club you can only loan players you can't have any DR players.

Edited by thundergaz, 15 December 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[thundergaz]

The big disappointment for me with these clubs linking is that there is no uniformity in the deals that are being struck and there does not appear to be any set rules other than the Championship club can use up to 5 SL players on dual registration.

Deals such as the Giants including the Batley players in their BUPA medical scheme seems to be a one off and obviously gives Batley an advantage because that is money they will not have to spend themselves. Other deals like Rochdale with Saints have seen the Under 20's coach from Saints who would have no team to coach at Saints become the coach of Rochdale with two other members of the Saints coaching staff assisting him. Other clubs can pop down the road and use the SL clubs facilities and staff, etc, whilst others because of the distance between their club and their SL twin can only hope that they can have the loan of 5 decent players who will not get tired of travelling each week for training and home matches.

Many Championship clubs have accepted this arrangement mainly because of the 5 players they could get to add to their squad and also because they didn't want to be left out after the initial Leeds/Hunslet link was arranged. For teams like Workington it means that by adding the 5 Widnes players to our squad we have more money available to pay the travel bills, etc, in order to remain solvent and even once again hopefully show a working profit.

It will be interesting to see how some of these links unfold but because there are so many variations in what is available, etc, I cannot accept that integrity of the Championship competition has not been affected.

I agree Keith but the main reason these link ups have come about is so the SL clubs don't lose their most talented kids and if say your club Workington have a good player that they think can make SL they will take him off your hands for no fee payed to yourselves that's why I believe the champ clubs in these link ups are feeder clubs.What is the point in clubs working their bits off to produce good local talent for the SL clubs to pinch for no fee. I know a good player would go if a SL club came calling but I would rather get the money as it softens the blow of losing the player.

Edited by thundergaz, 15 December 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[barrowraiderskid]

If your club isn't linked with a SL club you can only loan players you can't have any DR players.

I see, how many loans is it?

[Ramite]

I agree Keith but the main reason these link ups have come about is so the SL clubs don't lose their most talented kids and if say your club Workington have a good player that they think can make SL they will take him off your hands for no fee payed to yourselves that's why I believe the champ clubs in these link ups are feeder clubs.What is the point in clubs working their bits off to produce good local talent for the SL clubs to pinch for no fee. I know a good player would go if a SL club came calling but I would rather get the money as it softens the blow of losing the player.

Gaz where did you get that SL teams pay no fee ? My understanding is any compensation due hasn't been changed due to the link ups.

[Keith T]

Aren't the last one or two posts evidence that fans are in the dark as to what is and what isn't the case? There are so many variations on these partnerships that it is time the RFL published the guidelines, etc. A reply I got from the RFL said that system was constantly being reviewed or in other words "we'll wait and see how it develops".

[Dave T]

If your club isn't linked with a SL club you can only loan players you can't have any DR players.

Is that a definite fact?

[intheshed]

Is that a definite fact?

Until such time as definitive rules are published I guess there are no definite facts but it does seem to be a widely held and uncontested view. As ever there are apparently exemptions to the rule though, one being for agreements made before the partnership system was approved, whenever that may have been.