Saint Toppy

If you read between the lines of what IMG have said their focus isn't on any sort of creation of equality between leagues, its firstly to get to a point where we have 12-14 strong, viable Cat A clubs in SL, and 12-14 strong, viable Cat B clubs in the Championship and to use this as the basis for promotion & growth of the sport (better TV deals, increased sponsorship, increased media attention etc.) They don't appear to have any interest in making it 'fair' amongst all Cat B clubs, they're focussed on the bigger, long-term picture and growth of the sport at the professional / semi-professional level. Initially there will be some Cat B clubs in SL getting vastly more income from TV than the Cat B clubs in the Championship, that won't change from what we have now. The focus will be on the Cat B SL clubs to use that money to get themselves up to a Cat A licence, and if they don't manage that over a certain time period then they'll likely find themselves being overtaken by some other clubs and pushed out of SL further down the track. I get that you think this is 'unfair' and that all clubs should get a more equal split of the TV money, but that's not IMG's vision of how they see the best way for the sport to grow itself. They see more of a 'top down' approach by starting with a strong stable SL first full of Cat A clubs and then a trickle down to having a strong, stable Championship with Cat B clubs. It wont be a completely closed shop, but ultimately if/when they reach this point it will be incredibly difficult for a Cat B club to gain entry into SL to join the Cat A clubs. That Cat B club is going to have to have a fairly wealthy backer in order for them to take that next step, and to essentially be a Cat A club in all but name, but I guess that what IMG want, a SL full of financially strong clubs.

He coached Saints junior teams, left to coach in the Championship for a few years (Rochdale I think from memory) then came back to Saints again coaching the juniors and stepping up as one of the assistants for the 1st team about 4-5 years ago.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand IMG's role. They're not here to strengthen clubs, their proposals are to put in place the structure for the whole competition that will give clubs targets to work towards to gain certain classes of licence and strengthen themselves in the process. This then allows IMG to have greater leverage when negotiating future deals with sponsors, TV companies etc. The stronger and more stable the game the more attractive it is for bringing money into the game.

Thats the whole point of IMG's proposals to have strong, viable clubs in order to grow the game and to move away from the current system of just being based on on-field results with yo-yo clubs continually on the verge of going bust. The aim is to get 12 (and eventually 14+) strong Category A clubs in SL, and presumably then to have a Championship with 12-14 strong Category B clubs (who can then set their sights on a future Cat A licence and a place in SL). A prime example of this is probably a club like Newcastle. They're in an area i'm sure IMG would call as a 'development / expansion' area and they'd love to see them become a strong Category B club in the short term (say 4-5 years) and a Cat A club in the long term (say 8-10 Yrs). Having a strong, stable competition across SL and the lower leagues will inevitably lead to improvements in income streams (TV deals, sponsorships etc.). I understand why people may argue over the detail of how this is achieved (even though that detail is yet to be determined & made public), but surely nobody can argue about the logic of their long term plan for the sport ?

Saints do want Thompson back but he's staying in the NRL at least for 2023. So if he does come back it will be for 2024, which is more likely anyway with LMS retiring and Paasi out of Contract at the end of 2023. Its nothing to do with Walmsley who definately isn't leaving anytime soon.

Ah the old "its someone else's fault we failed" comeback London have had several very wealthy backers, threw money at bringing players in but were a total basket case of a club off the field lurching from one temporary home to another and attracting crowds that would embarrass most Championship teams. As much as some people would desperately love to see a London based SL team they have an awful lot of work to do in building the club before they should even be considered.

Read the post from The Daddy that I was responding to where he was asking for IMG to address the imbalance of too many heartland clubs and not enough clubs from further afield. I was merely pointing out that aside from Catalans all the other non-heartland clubs who have been given a shot in SL have failed to be viable in the top flight

There we go now confirmed Wello is the new head coach. Keeping Ian Talbot as one assistant but also added Laurent Frayssinous as his other assistant Happy with that coaching team

Talk about taking things out of context, I was responding to a specific proposal put forward by Damien and offering an alternative suggestion on the distribution of talent

If your stating you can only have 10 players earing over £100K in your as quad then you are dictating how a club spends its salary cap

The issue is none of the clubs outside the heartlands aside from Catalans have been able to be sustainable in SL when given their opportunity. London, Toronto, Crusaders, PSG all failures in the top flight. You can only grow the game outside the heartlands if there are clubs equal to or better than the ones in the heartlands. Creating and throwing these teams into SL just for 'image' if they fail soon after is pointless.

But then your dictating how they spend their salary cap. A much simpler change would be to set a minimum number of home grown players in your squad of 25 (say 15 or 18) in conjunction with reducing the overseas quota limit to say 4. That stops the clubs with the deepest pockets from just stripping the best talent from everyone and buying in all the best overseas talent they can afford.

That's my whole point, with your own youngsters your never going to get the ready made article and of course your going to be weaker at the start. The difference is clubs like Saints, Wigan & Leeds accept that and give those youngsters the chance to settle in and develop and bring themselves up to the highest level. Wire don't, they just say they're not the ready made article and go out and but some 30yr old Aussie. Saints could have gone out and bought a replacement for Fages, but they didn't they put faith in Lewis Dodd knowing he was far from the finished article, similarly they could have bought a replacement for Coote, but didn't they elected to give Welsby the No 1 shirt. They don't always have youngsters ready to step up into all positions and of course they have to bring in new players from outside the club, but that's always their 2nd option. If they have a youngster with promise then he'll get his chance first. As i've said previously clubs like Saints, Wigan & Leeds have a different philosophy than most others when it comes to developing their own youngsters, they accept some short term pain for the long term gain. The fact that these 3 teams have dominated SL largely with teams of home grown players proves there's merit in their thinking.

On the contrary, some of your better performing players this year were your own academy lads opposed to all your underperforming big money signings. Wire are pretty much guaranteed to get an A Licence so with no relegation to worry about this would be the perfect opportunity to change their model from a buying club to a promote from within first club. If they accept they'll be unlikely to be serious challengers for the next 3-5 years or so while they build then they'll reap the rewards further down the track. Lets face it they've tried to buy their way to SL success and failed so there's obviously some merit in the theory that success comes from having a successful academy and opportunity system in place.

Thewliss has great potential and has already preformed well in numerous games - but you went out and bought the worst FB in the NRL in Dufty. Similar for Wrench at centre but you tried to re-sign Wardle. Just 2 examples where you have academy players who have shown enough to suggest they can play regular 1st team rugby but Wire have chosen to buy in instead of letting them establish themselves first to see if they'll really make it. And before you no doubt make the comment of 'we'll play Dufty at 6', its exactly the same outcome in that he's now stopping Dean from getting his chance.

The big 3 can quite easily be the big 4, 5 or 6 in a relatively short space of time. Using Warrington as an example, they have the money, they have the facilities, they have good local engagement and their academy teams generally do OK on the field. The only thing thats stops Warrington is Opportunity. For years they've just gone out and tried to buy success, importing new players at every opportunity. They must put youngsters off from signing for the club in the first place if they can see they would have little opportunity to try and establish themselves in the first team if they choose to sign for Wire.

There's no such thing as a Draft - every junior has a choice of who they sign for if made multiple offers. The fact that many of the top players choose the top 3 clubs is largely down to what those clubs can offer that many of the other clubs don't, can't or wont. There are multiple reasons, money, coaching, facilities, opportunity etc. so the real question should be why don't all clubs offer the same to try and entice the best youngsters ? So if academy / youth development is made part of the A Licence criteria this will force clubs to improve in this area.

The only thing Wellens & Cunningham have in common is that they're past players at the club. At club level Wello has been assistant to the likes of Holbrook & Woolf, both multiple trophy winning coaches, and he's also worked under multiple international coaches. In addition he's also been studying to gain his elite coaching licence, none of which Cunningham did. I hope Wello does get given his chance as head coach, he's earned it

Before getting the knives out you do realise that it wasn’t the players or the club who withdrew them, they were withdrawn by the England medical team after they were assessed after the GF. Saints never made public the severity of both players injuries and when the England doctor was given that info he then withdrew them deeming then to be too big a risk for the WC squad.

Surely Corey Norman and Kenny Edwards must be in the team. They both have the grubbiest fingers in RL given where they like to stick them during matches

Jeeze what a hissy fit. It’s not about advantage it’s about some clubs spending time, money and effort on their academies and thus them reaping the rewards. While others just pay lip service and continually whine that they can’t compete.

I didn’t decline I just couldn’t be bothered to answer at the time given I’m currently sat on a beach in the Caribbean and not in dreary England But in response the big 3 produce more because over the last few decades they’ve invested more in their youth and created a pathway for those kids to get their 1st team chance. When a 1st teamer leaves their first thought is which of our youngsters is ready to step up and take their place, not who can we go out and buy to replace them

For a start any restrictions on who you can sign for and who you can’t is almost certainly illegal under UK law as a restriction of trade. leave Steve and his dumb ideas to retirement

Meninga may be a queenslander but surely even he’s not that stupid and pig headed to pick DCE over Cleary. Of all the 7s in the NRL I wouldn’t even have DCE in the top 3 let alone 1st choice for Australia. Cleary, Moses and Hynes are all better than DCE IMO.

Which is exactly what I agreed with in the previous threads about academy licences. I’ve long argued that an academy should be mandatory for all SL clubs and that clubs should be measured on how well they develop those youngsters and bring them through to their 1st team and let them then establish themselves as 1st team players. Too many clubs just see their youngsters as squad fillers, there to cover for injuries and they automatically buy in new. It’s no coincidence that the 3 most successful clubs are the ones with the 3 best academies and the ones who continually promote from within as their first priority and only buy in when they don’t have an academy player for that position at that time.