bowes

I'd merge down the top 3 divisions to 14 and 16ish teams (which a few switches round) as 10 teams isn't enough (though there is a case for 12 sides in SL). Then look at merging the remainder C1 with the top of the NCL as part of a National League structure

We need something between Under 16s and open age in the midlands. I believe Under 19s is the most likely age we'd go, though most sides of that age group get put in the merit league at the moment. Of course if we go for west and east midlands regionals and Under 19s we'd not be able to run the merit league so we'd have to think hard about that as it would make it harder for adult sides to get into the sport in the short term (presumably remaining merit league sides would have to be directed to the nearest merit league, e.g. Dronfield to Yorkshire if possible under that scenario), but then again we really need a way of keeping our Under 16s in the sport and 3 years at Under 19s would be a good way of doing it (we're not at the stage of looking at U18s and U21s).

If it were just a badly run club you'd be right, but it was a huge risk to players' welfare

I haven't heard enough to make me think that I need to, primarily on the player welfare side of things. I am glad that Brentwood Elvers are still going as that is good work and none of my criticism is directed at the likes of junior coaches so I'll apologise if I didn't explicitly exclude them enough. Guess not then, tough one I thought the Skolars C1 side took in players from other areas of the South, but perhaps not (Premier I thought were locals and largely separate from the pro side, they did once split as Haringey Hornets and it has been considered again). Definitely medium term National Youth League sides in the East and South of London would be very desirable once we're ready, what would happen with open age is dependant on the way the structure changes with the amateur game switching to summer etc.

Another problem with getting sides in these places is that due to a change in the law (players receiving any pay needing a hard to get sports visa not the easier to get working holiday visa) it's nigh on impossible to bring Australians into the country to play semi-pro so you'd find it very hard to get the starting playing standards. This is roughly what Crusaders got busted for and why Skolars aren't the side there were and part of the reason Gateshead aren't (the other being money). These sides and Scorpions are now local based which is good for the future, though Skolars and Gateshead are currently at too high a level for their playing ability and the same problem would occur for a Scottish side (I very much doubt an Irish side would get off the ground).

Best to end debate on Essex Eels as I've heard nothing to change my mind and it's taken us way off topic. Back on topic: Would Harlequins moving out of London raise the relevancy of the Skolars as a developmental toool in the way South Wales Scorpions currently are for Crusaders (the Under 18s will also switch to be part of them in the NYL)? I know there's already a link up but if they moved to Oxford or MK then they wouldn't be able to run local Under 20s (like Crusaders don't run a Wrexham based one), so would these sort of players be likely to end up at the Skolars? Plus of course they'd be the biggest club in the capital as well.

Anyone that insists on playing teams of 11 teenagers new to rugby league against top amateur clubs is either #### who wants to risk serious injury or very ignorant, full stop. Essex Eels folded and it was inevitable, anyone with any common sense could have said that, full stop. There's no defence for what went on whatsoever, I've seen them play and it was a joke. Welfare of players comes above sponsorship deals (which Essex Eels said were good so I'm trusting that, some people alleged they were just club propaganda) or committee members' egos. I cannot believe anyone still defends that failure of Essex Eels in National League 3 years after I and the many other people that saw through the propaganda to what was really going on have been proven right

The part about them not being originally let in I heard from Marto mainly in reference to Bramley, the RFL wanting rid of them was quite a heated public debate on here. Though I heard originally the RFL put Essex on the list of clubs by mistake and they had to quickly get people to set them up, not sure how much truth there is in this? I know every now and again the RFL take a proactive approach to try to get people to set up clubs in areas with few clubs, the South West Conference and Bristol Sonics are testimony to this so can be a good idea. (In fact I'd try it in the area just to the South of London, plus the Thames Valley region to try to get more localised divisions down south but that's another debate). However, unfortunately the ambitions of the committee were not the same as those of the players and the sponsorship deal for playing nationally made it harder to drop down that it otherwise would have been. Either way I'm glad the juniors survived and likewise Medway Dragons largely have taken over from Kent Ravens in the junior front for that area (and very well at that, believe some of the same people are involved).

Skolars are in North London, but other than that no sides up there. Staines Titans are the juniors for West London Sharks but yes the rest is East, South or Hertfordshire. I think long term we'll probably see a couple of National Youth League sides cover this gap, but doubt we'll see it til a few lots of juniors have started to come through. Those of North London and Hertfordshire already have Hemel Stags in NYL and the top lot can go Harlequins Academy

It's not his plan, it was the original RFL one. Huddersfield weren't a big club at the time and were intended to survive as a standalone club in the First Division. The worst idea there was including Barrow in with the other Cumbrian sides, though at the time they were on their last legs (before 'merging' with Carlisle) so I suppose made some sense, but geographically would fail

As far as I know: For 2004 Essex Eels applied and initially got rejected as did Bramley; Carlisle and Birmingham got promoted. Later on appeal Bramley were let in and they needed a southern side to make up the numbers and Essex were the only ones interested. A few weeks later Teesside folded so the RFL could have got their even balance and 12 teams anyway, but obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing. By stepping up Essex Eels lost RU players (logically because of the crossover) and were weaker than the side finishing midtable in the East division. After a poor season the RFL tried to drop them to the South Premier and they kicked up a fuss and appealed and around that time South London dropped out so the RFL thought it was easier to let them in. At the end of the season they still weren't keen on dropping but the RFL stopped all or some of their central handout in part as a fine to cover Warrington Wizards cost when Essex Eels couldn't raise a team at home (away up north they managed with Pennine League players) and they entered financial ruins and new people tried to save them but managed to save the most important part, the juniors. Either way their open age were always a joke, good juniors doesn't improve the standard of your first team. It was always going to fail miserably putting them in NL3 that early and they represented everything wrong with rushing expansion

Fair point, that's number 1 issue with ground and location 2nd IMO

It got talked up as a big ground, probably more than it was, but yes the capacity of 5000 was Kent Ravens in retrospect (another overambitious club). Either way Essex Eels did the world of harm to the image of National League 3 as a serious league (they weren't the only side) and putting young players new to the sport against top amateur sides was incredibly reckless at best and the main reason the RFL should have stepped in much earlier than they did. Unfortunately the concept of that big a national spread wasn't workable anyway as can be told by the teams good enough on the pitch that travelling was too much for (Coventry, South London, St Albans)

The other problems are finances and playing standardd (you can't just ship in Aussies now), the RFL seem happy with Hemel's junior development work especially that they enter a National Youth League side. I'd imagine when Championship licensing comes in the standards would be lowered enough for Hemel to slot into whatever replaces C1 (though depends how big the Championship becomes)

Eastern Rhinos from Colchester are the only other one. Brentwood Elvers were run by the same people as Essex Eels but when the original reckless owners bailed (who had not only taken them into NL3 but left them there after a year when they were obviously not even close to up to it and moved them from their home base in Basildon to a 5000 capacity ground in Romford) the new more responsible ones realised they had to separate the juniors as that was the part most worth keeping. They tried to save the adults but it was too little too late and with the rise of Hainault Bulldogs the area was well covered

They folded 4 years ago

Really? Players can be replaced more easily than a place to play. If Quins chuck you out or up the rent then suddenly it's much more serious to worry about. Plus crowds are poor and if anything falling and so the chance of somewhere cheaper to rent with bigger crowds is a huge deal

Sounds like a potential for a Championship side some time in the medium to distant future maybe?

Not big enough

It needn't be the same setup, but I don't see how sides going into administration on promotion every year is doing anyone any favours. Should be one bigger division open to all sides meeting criteria, not the lets put 2 or 3 clubs into administration a year setup Barrow would never have gone up, they'd fail ground criteria.

You'd have to take into account C1 clubs having lower crowds, but yes something along those lines, though turnover may need reducing. I'd call it National 1, but same sort of lines. Believe the aim is 2 National divisions below the Championship then it splits West, East and South. But the South part of that needs working towards

http://www.totalrl.com/index.php?showtopic=205127 Seen this claim elsewhere as well and given the silly money thrown about especially early in the season and the

Whitehaven got problems chasing promotion when it was there I'll agree, not sure how it weakens my argument of the damages of P & R though. I'd have flexible numbers of teams in the Championship so any club meeting a certain standard could enter (but obviously not the Blackpools, Gatesheads, Skolars etc. at least as those clubs are)

Because of the salary cap difference relegation is already decided before a ball is kicked that it will be the promoted sides, unless as in this season a side hits financial troubles. If it weren't for Whitehaven's financial problems Dewsbury would be going back down after their 100% record in C1 last year, to be replaced with a worse side that will go back down in worse financial state. Who does that benefit?

Technically speaking it is, the South East has a strange border that includes the Thames Valley area.