One point on the SL clubs looking to save money - I'm not sure why people are ignoring the 2nd reason, which was highlighted in the RFL's update.
Some clubs wanted the reduction in costs, some wanted the system changed because they didn't feel the structure was right. I'm not convinced this structure is right, but people shouldn't just pick and choose elements of the reason to suit their argument and to bash the clubs or the RFL.
I'm not convinced that Wigan and Leeds will have wanted the age group scrapping to save £100k - although that's just my feeling. Similarly I'd expect the likes of Hull to be happy to invest £100k if the system was working properly and providing a suitable pathway.
There must be an assumption that the system wasn't right - as I say I don;t believe this system is right - but I don;t have the facts to hand.
You're quite right in that, I really can't believe that all of the clubs were looking at this for a cash saving perspective rather than player pathway. That said, if the player pathway wanted improving, would it not have been best to have discussions across all of the RFLs member clubs, rather than have some decide on what suited them best and try to enforce that upon the rest?