Damien

This is all very fair and I'm actually surprised the RFL haven't done something like this.

102kg again this week

Seen this hours ago on here

I have often thought this too about being stuck with the Rugby tag. I certainly think in new places with no history the game should consider using a different name.

There is no way I would pay that for him or make him the most expensive player in the NRL (Not saying the game as I would be certain SBW is paid more).

I think we are moving to a different debate than the one I was having but its interesting nonetheless. To answer your questions. I don't see the salary cap as an obstacle to youth development per se. I do see it as an obstacle to the game and clubs that want to shake things up and disrupt the status quo. It forces a model that in reality only benefits the existing big clubs. Under such a system the existing big clubs will always sign the best youngsters and have the best teams without having to spend too much and outcompete each other. It creates a charade of an even competition that isn't really true. On your second point I understand where you are coming from but think those days are gone in this full time professional age. I'm not necessarily saying they were bad and the system you describe certainly has its merits but I think in a competing age we cant go back to it. Schools don't play the game as they once did and cant be relied on. Strong RL schools can change overnight on the whim of a PE or headteacher. Players also now regularly debut professionally at 18 or 19 and one big advantage RL has at the moment over RU is that players can be signed a year younger. This in itself sees RL sign players that may be tempted to go the other way if it worked in reverse. I can see top young players drifting to RU, and a lot are targeted now as is, if we put more barriers in their path to professional Rugby or have them playing for amateur teams for longer. That is before you consider the benefits of training in a fully professional environment from 16. This thread about the u19s St Pats v Egremont match from 1982 is a kind of flashback to the times that you talk of. Take a look at the names, it is unthinkable today:

If you go by playing numbers then Soccer is more popular than RL in Australia and Soccer is more popular than American Football in the US. It doesn't really tell the full story though does it?

There's nothing like taking one line from the a long post to try and twist it out of context. That's what I'd expect from some of the others in the Leigh echo chamber. Of course what you say hasn't changed but its not what I said either. What you say also has nothing to do with what a professional club does to develop a player. Please tell me when a salary cap has existed for the majority of RL's history? When has youth development, which in itself is a loose term because the development actually largely happens at an amateur club, deemed to be the only way for a professional club?

Very good. Apart from brief snippets I have still never seen this game on TV.

This is rich coming from you. Whose they anyway? Anyone whose not a Leigh fan? You don't half give your club a bad name.

We do see it fairly often.

Yeah everyone knows that. Kicking the ball out to end the game is something I have only seen in recent years too, it is certainly not something that was widely done in the past.

Nope and to be honest I feel that way when I read many of your posts and others. Plenty of people have differing views but yet some want the game run exactly the same way to an exact thinking, with no or little leeway, because that is what has been deemed best by some in Rugby League over the last 2 decades to suit their own agenda. This doesn't really allow for other viewpoints, models or other ways to build a club or achieve success.

The British RL model is signing the best players from amateur clubs that your club can attract in the hope that they become good enough for the first team. Professional clubs aren't some charity signing these players for the good of the game, they are doing that because it makes good sense for them and provides a steady stream of cheap talent. It would not make sense for every club to follow the Toronto model because it does not make business sense for them to do so and some probably couldn't afford to do so even if they wished. I don't know any other UK sport that blindly follows the model that RL purists want Toronto to follow. I don't even know why some RL fans want all clubs to be the same in some sanitised, strictly controlled model to suit their club. Even the much fabled salary cap and youth development in reality does no more than favour the big clubs and maintain the status quo. It hasn't been this way for the vast majority of the history of Rugby League and isn't seen as the only way in Football or RU. Quite why it is seen as the only way now in RL I don't know. In Football or RU if an owner wants to plough money into the sport then so be it. If a RL club wants to splash the cash and put funds into other clubs through transfer fees then great. If they want to attract superstars then fantastic. As you say if Toronto do not want to produce youth, an argument against them that is exaggerated somewhat after only 3 years, in theory yes they are at a disadvantage but that should be their choice and it certainly shouldn't be the only measure of success.

And how is that any different than any other rich owner doing that? Toronto aren't in in their own little bubble when it comes to this but seem to be doing more than most to diversify and develop their commercial side so they aren't dependent on one owner.

Exactly plus an element of showboating and celebrating too early. It was just poorly executed as you say.

Its gambling pure and simple and putting all your eggs in one basket. I also disagree its the direction that was taken from last summer, trying to buy cheap and sell at profit has been what the club have done since the Dave Whelan days. Its also what many other clubs have done for years. There is absolutely nothing new about any of it. We'll agree to disagree.

Its not sustainable, they are losing millions every season with the model. Its also a complete gamble that you have the right manager, the right team and structure, and obviously most importantly buy the right players at the right time that can improve and be sold at profit. You are trying to strike gold every season and there are dozens of clubs in the same boat with very few big number transfers to strike big with. Wigan Athletic have been very lucky to have some great managers with all the stars aligning but it doesn't take much for such a model to fall apart.

Because it is easier and with p&r results matter.

Increasing the quota does not increase the number of marquee players though, it simply increases the number of average imports.

Its primarily a training complex and houses what was at Central Park. The pre/post match hospitality there is essentially a bit of a make the best of a bad situation as they get no revenue from the DW.

If Lenegan did the right thing and the Latics share of the stadium was split 50/50, which should have always been the case until Whelan twigged that the Football club was worth diddly squat without it, then there would be no need to have pre/post match hospitality at Robin Park.

The source of what you quoted was this: It is quite clear.

I did read the thread, perhaps you should.

If any club is dependent on away fans then they are the ones doing something wrong.