Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tuutaisrambo

Phil Clarkes thoughts on Dual reg

141 posts in this topic

So why is pretty much every team in the lower tiers rushing headlong to secure DR deals then and this such a big issue in the first place?

Because they're cheaper as they're paid by the $uperleague club.

On the playing ability point,I don't think it is a big issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they're cheaper as they're paid by the $uperleague club.

So a good thing, then?

But clearly most coaches also think they give a team with them a distinct edge on any team without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why is pretty much every team in the lower tiers rushing headlong to secure DR deals then and this such a big issue in the first place? You're basically turning your own argument against yourself. Hoist by your own petard.

You obviously know very little about the Championships and even less about the dual registration system that has been imposed.

SL clubs have been discussing this since last April about finding a way around getting rid of Under 18's and Under 20's to save them money. The RFL worked with them and suggested that they do away with both those age groups and just retain Under 19' s and Under 23's. Despite one or two SL clubs disagreeing they voted to also do away with the Under 23's as well as the other two age groups.

All that was done before the Championship clubs had even met to discuss the ramifications of what was happening and also prior to that meeting Leeds and Hunslet had already announced their partnership and one or two other clubs had been working to make similar arrangements.

Once that particular ball had started rolling other clubs could see that if they didn't go down the same route then they could be left behind and easily be relegated to the Championship 1 at the end of the season. That fact has had more to do with the upset over dual registrations than any talk of P & R to Sl being reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously know very little about the Championships and even less about the dual registration system that has been imposed.

SL clubs have been discussing this since last April about finding a way around getting rid of Under 18's and Under 20's to save them money. The RFL worked with them and suggested that they do away with both those age groups and just retain Under 19' s and Under 23's. Despite one or two SL clubs disagreeing they voted to also do away with the Under 23's as well as the other two age groups.

All that was done before the Championship clubs had even met to discuss the ramifications of what was happening and also prior to that meeting Leeds and Hunslet had already announced their partnership and one or two other clubs had been working to make similar arrangements.

Once that particular ball had started rolling other clubs could see that if they didn't go down the same route then they could be left behind and easily be relegated to the Championship 1 at the end of the season. That fact has had more to do with the upset over dual registrations than any talk of P & R to Sl being reinstated.

I agree with what you are saying,i would also add that the DR system has been in place for 'i think' 4 seasons now and it hasn't been much of a problem til now, because if a champ club needed a player it could go to ANY sl club and ask for a YOUNG player/s to cover any problems, which helped all concerned.

The problem now is they've upping the number from 4 to 5 and directly linked one club to another by saying you can only use players from one club,that makes the championship clubs A teams,and if this situation isn't stopped its going to get worse for the whole league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Leigh Pownall, Goulden, Taylor, Hopkins, Nicholson, Penky, Littler, Higson, all came through East/Miners/Academy as did Higham at Wire and Hill arrived at 15.

Yes but SL clubs took Higham, Hill and Littler so the situation has been for years that the Championship is full of players the SL reject. This is wether the SL clubs don't pick them up from amateur or Championship academy in the first place, or whether the SL clubs do pick them up but eventually reject them.

As this moves on towards "A" teams Championship clubs will save money in wages, SL clubs will save money running the team below their first team, and those players good enough will progress from championship sister club to SL sister club. Those not good enough are open to find another club but may drop out.

The same numbers of the best kids will still flow into the development system only the Championship will replace the U23 league, which it seems to me was an "A" team league?.

Clarke speaks about SL players putting Championship players noses out of joint, and there's a lot of talk about disruption, and the U23 being imporet, but surely that is because what has been created is a halfway house. If this is really one of those silly political manouverings where clubs "start" with a maximum four dual registrations and tell us all "nothing to see move along" then after all the furore has died down it moves to five, then it moves to a senior SL player being put in for game time, then it moves to 6 dual reg and 2 players wanting game time, you end up with 8 players from Leeds playing for Hunslet.

My point is Clarke is commenting on the problems the current situation creates. But if the Superleague make the Championship into what the U23 league is Clarkes points won't be relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system does tend to look as if it could move in that direction Parky but it surely is down to the coaches at both clubs to see that the true spirit of the system is what comes through.

The rules do not stipulate any set number of players that can be dual registered and there were many posts when Widnes dual registered their whole squad to Workington.. Many were suggesting that Workington would be playing all sorts of international players, etc, but nothing could be further from the truth and what has actually happened.

To date Workington have used 20 yr old Declan Hulme in 3 games, 21 yr old Grant Gore in 2 games and 23 yr old Ben Davies in 1 game. Even this week, Widnes have no game due to Leeds playing Storm which in theory means that every Widnes player is available Workington have stuck with two, Hulme and Gore for their home game with Sheffield. This, to my mind, is the correct way the system should be used and all credit to the Workington and Widnes coaches for doing it this way.

We seem to be stuck with this system for this season but for next season if the SL clubs are still not to have a reserve team then I suggest a dual registered system with a limit of say 6 or 7 players may be registered and make it that those players were Under 25 and only any 4 could play in any 1 game. I think the Under 23 grade should be altered to either Under 25 or 26 which caters for young players who may be late developers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least Gateshead have nailed their colours to the mast. They are having the HKR badge on their playing shirt this year. Will other dual clubs follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system does tend to look as if it could move in that direction Parky but it surely is down to the coaches at both clubs to see that the true spirit of the system is what comes through.

The rules do not stipulate any set number of players that can be dual registered and there were many posts when Widnes dual registered their whole squad to Workington.. Many were suggesting that Workington would be playing all sorts of international players, etc, but nothing could be further from the truth and what has actually happened.

To date Workington have used 20 yr old Declan Hulme in 3 games, 21 yr old Grant Gore in 2 games and 23 yr old Ben Davies in 1 game. Even this week, Widnes have no game due to Leeds playing Storm which in theory means that every Widnes player is available Workington have stuck with two, Hulme and Gore for their home game with Sheffield. This, to my mind, is the correct way the system should be used and all credit to the Workington and Widnes coaches for doing it this way.

We seem to be stuck with this system for this season but for next season if the SL clubs are still not to have a reserve team then I suggest a dual registered system with a limit of say 6 or 7 players may be registered and make it that those players were Under 25 and only any 4 could play in any 1 game. I think the Under 23 grade should be altered to either Under 25 or 26 which caters for young players who may be late developers,

Do you believe your club should be linked to one sl club thus becoming its A team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system does tend to look as if it could move in that direction Parky but it surely is down to the coaches at both clubs to see that the true spirit of the system is what comes through.

The rules do not stipulate any set number of players that can be dual registered and there were many posts when Widnes dual registered their whole squad to Workington.. Many were suggesting that Workington would be playing all sorts of international players, etc, but nothing could be further from the truth and what has actually happened.

To date Workington have used 20 yr old Declan Hulme in 3 games, 21 yr old Grant Gore in 2 games and 23 yr old Ben Davies in 1 game. Even this week, Widnes have no game due to Leeds playing Storm which in theory means that every Widnes player is available Workington have stuck with two, Hulme and Gore for their home game with Sheffield. This, to my mind, is the correct way the system should be used and all credit to the Workington and Widnes coaches for doing it this way.

We seem to be stuck with this system for this season but for next season if the SL clubs are still not to have a reserve team then I suggest a dual registered system with a limit of say 6 or 7 players may be registered and make it that those players were Under 25 and only any 4 could play in any 1 game. I think the Under 23 grade should be altered to either Under 25 or 26 which caters for young players who may be late developers,

Thank you for your post.

I'd suggest coaches are paid to do as they are told, and it's the board who will really dictate policy.

What happens at other clubs we will see, but at Hunslet they very quickly got as far as youngsters Keinhorst, Watson and Hood down to play and then Leuluai and Moore to also play to keep them match fit, then Brad Singleton decides to go to Hunslet from loan at Wakefield.

That's six players and this "thing" has only been going a matter of weeks.

Hunslet have no way out of this, and looking to "limit the number" is for what purpose? Is it so that the actual Hunslet players are not put out that much??

My point is that it's gone so far so quickly at Hunslet, that they may as well just drop any pretence, and openly and honestly turn the team into an "A" team.

Years ago when Hunslet at first team level were awful, we had a great "A" team and at Parkside when the seniors were losing all the time, we had an "A" team that were Yorkshire senior competition winners and YSC cup runners up. The cup game at Parkside attracted 2,000 whilst the senior side were on 800 crowds.

So why not just get on with it and create something that may be able to compete in the Championship (rather than lose 40-0 to Leigh and lose at home to Dewsbury). you never know it may just get the fans coming back like the "A" team at Parkside did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe your club should be linked to one sl club thus becoming its A team?

I am not a believer in this sort of system so, no, I am not in favour of it. However, because of other clubs taking this course and us having just managed to get out of Championship 1 after 10 years I can see why our club took this option so as not to be left behind.

We had dual registered players last year from different clubs but we were let down when those players were made not available to us by their SL clubs, so again I can see some merit in a SL club "offering" players to a Championship club but the system as we have been foisted with is not fit for purpose and poses more questions than answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a believer in this sort of system so, no, I am not in favour of it. However, because of other clubs taking this course and us having just managed to get out of Championship 1 after 10 years I can see why our club took this option so as not to be left behind.

We had dual registered players last year from different clubs but we were let down when those players were made not available to us by their SL clubs, so again I can see some merit in a SL club "offering" players to a Championship club but the system as we have been foisted with is not fit for purpose and poses more questions than answers.

So are you happy for workington to be become the widnes A team so long as it keeps you in the championship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you happy for workington to be become the widnes A team so long as it keeps you in the championship?

Apologies to Keith but he said he was resigned to it surely?

It's occured to me that it doesn't matter how far any club takes this thing as long as it never blocks an independent club's ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's occured to me that it doesn't matter how far any club takes this thing as long as it never blocks an independent club's ambition.

We need to restructure with 2 leagues of FT ambitious clubs and a league of clubs who can no longer survive paying players twinning with the FT clubs as a mixed league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's occured to me that it doesn't matter how far any club takes this thing as long as it never blocks an independent club's ambition.

Take it too far and it might.

Although I don't think we've reached that level yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to restructure with 2 leagues of FT ambitious clubs and a league of clubs who can no longer survive paying players twinning with the FT clubs as a mixed league.

Where will the money come from ? Full time players need a guaranteed level of income to pay the mortgage. All 25 of them. Not just the 17 who play.

It's a huge additional cost - probably double the current part time payroll.

And then there's the staff ......

Will that be funded by bigger crowds ? Probably not - second tier rugby will get second tier crowds. Full time or part time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously know very little about the Championships and even less about the dual registration system that has been imposed.

SL clubs have been discussing this since last April about finding a way around getting rid of Under 18's and Under 20's to save them money. The RFL worked with them and suggested that they do away with both those age groups and just retain Under 19' s and Under 23's. Despite one or two SL clubs disagreeing they voted to also do away with the Under 23's as well as the other two age groups.

All that was done before the Championship clubs had even met to discuss the ramifications of what was happening and also prior to that meeting Leeds and Hunslet had already announced their partnership and one or two other clubs had been working to make similar arrangements.

Once that particular ball had started rolling other clubs could see that if they didn't go down the same route then they could be left behind and easily be relegated to the Championship 1 at the end of the season. That fact has had more to do with the upset over dual registrations than any talk of P & R to Sl being reinstated.

Well I knew all of that so I’m not really sure on what basis I’m ignorant. Because I don’t follow a Championship or Championship 1 side, I expect. Not really a very strong position for you to take. I want to see what is best for all teams at all levels and IMHO a system of feeder clubs that still retain some local identity whilst being encouraged to operate within their means at a level outside of Super League is the best for all concerned. The poster above has highlighted your hypocrisy. If it’s the relegation trap door you fear then campaign against P&R between the Championships and not DR.

The opponents of DR on here are giving very mixed signals:

“It’s not fair to our lads”

“But the SL cast-off lads aren’t as good as our lads anyway”

“We don’t need or want them”

“But we might go down without them so we should have them”

Essentially IMHO they all want a crack at Super League so it’s a mixture of jealousy and fear we’re hearing here, rather than anything more justifiable.

Make your minds up what and where your gripe is here, because like it or not the game is modernising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSK, it's always better just to state your own views instead of misrepresenting the opinions of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you happy for workington to be become the widnes A team so long as it keeps you in the championship?

Can you be clear about where you see Workington as being Widnes' A team.....?

Widnes don't have a game this weekend - yet only 1 Widnes player is in Town's squad for Sundays game against one of the top sides.

Normally an A team in these circumstances would be pretty full of blokes needing match fitness. There are probably at least 5 or 6 who need some game time, who haven't really appeared for either Widnes or Town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A famous quote on re organisation seems to sum up this DR mess perfectly. It is reproduced below. The SL teams and the championship teams were stabilising and coalessing into functioning teams with a recognisable player development structure and suddenly a new situation came up, i.e. SL teams couldn't afford player developement so, rather than address it within the existing structure of SL they "reorganised", ditching developement junior teams and ruining the championships in the process. "An illsuion of progress" indeed producing the results in the last line of the quote to the letter.

"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning

to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later

in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;

and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress

while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where will the money come from ? Full time players need a guaranteed level of income to pay the mortgage. All 25 of them. Not just the 17 who play.

It's a huge additional cost - probably double the current part time payroll.

And then there's the staff ......

Will that be funded by bigger crowds ? Probably not - second tier rugby will get second tier crowds. Full time or part time.

The money is already there, its about using it better. 14X £1.3m = £19.2m, 10 x £1.3m = £13m, 10 X £700k= £7m = £20m total which is roughly existing deal incl the champiuonships 100k or so.

That second tiers gates will be pretty decent imo especially with a tier 1 place up for grabs, and the tier 1 will be huge as an elite comp with few 'easy' fixtures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to restructure with 2 leagues of FT ambitious clubs and a league of clubs who can no longer survive paying players twinning with the FT clubs as a mixed league.

Well you need to consider that the clubs who have scrambled for the DR thing have done so primarily to ensure they do not get relegated to a third tier.

If the league was to go to two divisions of independant clubs all the twinning clubs would be forced to back out of their arrangements.

In terms of your word "ambitious" clubs, I frankly see ambition at no more than about 14 clubs anyway.

Are London and Cas currently "ambitious" are Halifax displaying real "ambition" by action rather than lip service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money is already there, its about using it better. 14X £1.3m = £19.2m, 10 x £1.3m = £13m, 10 X £700k= £7m = £20m total which is roughly existing deal incl the champiuonships 100k or so.

That second tiers gates will be pretty decent imo especially with a tier 1 place up for grabs, and the tier 1 will be huge as an elite comp with few 'easy' fixtures

I wouldn't waste £700K on any club unless it was "ambitious". Name your twenty!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't waste £700K on any club unless it was "ambitious". Name your twenty!!

Bradford, Leeds, Hull, Hudds, Wakey, Saints, Wigan, Wire, London, Cats - Tier 1. 27 games and 1 down

Widnes, Salford, Cas, HKR, Toulouse, Fax, Fev, Leigh, Sheffield, and hopefully a Welsh club - Tier 2. 27 games and 1 up via play offs

Barrow, Haven, Town, Gateshead, Batley, Keighley, Dewsbury, Swinton, Oldham, Rochdale, Skolars, Oxford, Gloucester, Hemel - Tier 3 - 26 games and a KO comp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you need to consider that the clubs who have scrambled for the DR thing have done so primarily to ensure they do not get relegated to a third tier.

If the league was to go to two divisions of independant clubs all the twinning clubs would be forced to back out of their arrangements.

In terms of your word "ambitious" clubs, I frankly see ambition at no more than about 14 clubs anyway.

Are London and Cas currently "ambitious" are Halifax displaying real "ambition" by action rather than lip service?

We only have 5/6 clubs then who are ambitious, which is too few for the game to continue in its present form. Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull/Leeds with Hudds next to step up.

Clubs outside SL currently who have or are investing in facilities, jnr structures and ambitions to play at a higher level are included in my 20 with demonstrable ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.