Defender1 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I don't see the original club rule as workable. A limit of 3 per club makes sense though, if clubs vote this in Why should a club benifit from a player being at their club for say 1-2 years, poached, courjoeled to go so he may get a Pro contract, he could have been at the feeder club (that's what they are) for nearly 10 years. The issue is the RFL make these statements without thinking, if the player wants to go to his original club then you are changing the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casyorkie Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Why should a club benifit from a player being at their club for say 1-2 years, poached, courjoeled to go so he may get a Pro contract, he could have been at the feeder club (that's what they are) for nearly 10 years. The issue is the RFL make these statements without thinking, if the player wants to go to his original club then you are changing the rule. I agree its not perfect but a player cannot choose which club he goes to its his employer to decide if he goes to his last amateur club. There is no perfect way to decide which club he goes to but I suppose the community board decided this was the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casyorkie Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 It will be interesting to see if the NCL use the '2/3rds majority rule' at the next meeting, knowing that going off initial figures the DR rule would not be adopted . What I don't understand if the 2/3rds rule is there then why doesn't this vote count. I think the management overall do a good job but this does not look good saying there will be a second vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisholm 2 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I agree its not perfect but a player cannot choose which club he goes to its his employer to decide if he goes to his last amateur club. There is no perfect way to decide which club he goes to but I suppose the community board decided this was the best. That is one of the reasons, why my club voted against this. It WILL eventually end up with the pro clubs coaches dictating were a player goes on dual reg. It wont matter that a player could have played 6 or 7 years for 1 club and one season for the club from which he signed. The pro coach will dictate were he goes, if not in this proposal it will change to suit the pro clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casyorkie Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 That is one of the reasons, why my club voted against this. It WILL eventually end up with the pro clubs coaches dictating were a player goes on dual reg. It wont matter that a player could have played 6 or 7 years for 1 club and one season for the club from which he signed. The pro coach will dictate were he goes, if not in this proposal it will change to suit the pro clubs. I can understand the concern that once it is agreed the pro clubs will move the goal posts but at the meeting im sure it was asked and the answer given was pro clubs would need ncl agreement to change the arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 As per usual with our sport there always appears some sort of skulduggery going on in the background, we are a minority sport and should act like one looking after the game not the individual or is this why we are a declining minority sport. My passion is RL I do not follow other sports with that much interest do they have as many internal issues? I am also surprised not many have been on actually saying they voted Yes and their reasons why, or is it as bad as saying you voted TORY?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboulevardlegend Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Majority of hull based players have represented at least 2 of the city's NCL clubs.Personally think the idea should be ditched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 How many clubs will this affect in reality? It is only for Championship and Championship 1 clubs and do they really have a lot of ex NCL players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboulevardlegend Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 How many clubs will this affect in reality? It is only for Championship and Championship 1 clubs and do they really have a lot of ex NCL players? Surprisingly quite a large number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back In The Good Old Days Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Not many clubs going public about voting for dual registration. So that must mean the No votes have it surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 all 3 Cumbrian teams also voted against, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Not many clubs going public about voting for dual registration. So that must mean the No votes have it surely? Or is it as bad as saying you voted TORY?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefy1 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 As per usual with our sport there always appears some sort of skulduggery going on in the background, we are a minority sport and should act like one looking after the game not the individual or is this why we are a declining minority sport. My passion is RL I do not follow other sports with that much interest do they have as many internal issues? I am also surprised not many have been on actually saying they voted Yes and their reasons why, or is it as bad as saying you voted TORY?? Football is the biggest sport in the World, and they're having some issues of their own at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillmeister Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Theres five Cumbrian clubs not three Big Mac Forget Chuck and Chad I am the real legend killer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Football is the biggest sport in the World, and they're having some issues of their own at the moment. Beefy are you saying RFL officials are corrupt like football? I would say more diplomatic with the truth Football is the number one sport in the world, RL is about the 30th sport by participation in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Sorry, Iit should have been west Cumbrian clubs, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dessie O'Hare Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Beefy are you saying RFL officials are corrupt like football? I would say more diplomatic with the truth Football is the number one sport in the world, RL is about the 30th sport by participation in the UK Rugby League is 34th, Rugby is 14th. Football is 4th by participation. Top 3 are Swimming, Athletics and Cycling "There are only 5 functions of Internet FORUMS. . . . . . . . Brag . . Patronise . . Wind-up . . Fawn . . Threaten. . . . . . . Which one did you perform? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Rugby League is 34th, Rugby is 14th. Football is 4th by participation. Top 3 are Swimming, Athletics and Cycling Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 In my opinion how or why the DR went as it did, I know we don't know how all the clubs voted and are only going on what has been said on the forum, some clubs will have voted on principle and do not agree with the concept, others may not have seen a benefit, others may just not have voted Against?? Hull Clubs x 4 (No championship clubs in the area so no benefit) Cumbria x 3 (Due to their proximity to Championship clubs thought they could have seen a benefit) York Acorn (Due to their proximity to a Championship club thought they could have seen a benefit) Hunslet Warriors, Underbank, Leigh Miners, Salford Possible For (Due to Proximity with a Championship Club or clubs and saw a possible benefit) Normanton, Shaw Cross, Elland, Saddleworth, Featherstone, Leigh East, Dewsbury Celtic, Cumbria x 2, Oldham Saint Annes, Siddal, Rochdale Mayfield, Lock Lane, Wibsey, Gateshead, Hunslet Parkside, Thornhill, Woolston, Dewsbury Moor, Ince Possible For?? Pilkington, Milford, Wigan St Judes, Blackbrook, Bradford Dudley Hill, Stanley, Wigan St Pats, East Leeds, Thatto, Oulton, Stanningley, Crossfields Interestingly?? Were Rylands, Castleford Panthers, Eastmoor allowed a vote as they had not been voted into the NCL at the time of the deadline, if they did not vote this was counted as acceptance, allowed a vote they could have voted against meaning 23-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I think the principle is sound it's just aimed at the wrong set of players. Where the game loses numbers is at u19s allowing them back to their amateur club at that age makes more sense as they've only recently left. It keeps a link back to their clubs, as more than likely it's those players who aren't getting game time at u19s and aren't currently allowed to play that get lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I think the principle is sound it's just aimed at the wrong set of players. Where the game loses numbers is at u19s allowing them back to their amateur club at that age makes more sense as they've only recently left. It keeps a link back to their clubs, as more than likely it's those players who aren't getting game time at u19s and aren't currently allowed to play that get lost. I think your right I know Hull and HKR have mergered but had possibly 20+ players sat around on a game day in the past, one lad I know was not playing for Hull FC, could not play amateur RL but played Rugby Union. This creates the other issue (I know we can't win) but they get released then leave the game as they I have heard said, Fed Up, It's Too Serious, Need a break, my son is 19 and has been playing for 13 years and the game seems to want them to start younger, there aren't many who are committed to playing Rugby and giving up their time when they aren't getting paid or have to start paying for their tracksuits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casyorkie Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I think the principle is sound it's just aimed at the wrong set of players. Where the game loses numbers is at u19s allowing them back to their amateur club at that age makes more sense as they've only recently left. It keeps a link back to their clubs, as more than likely it's those players who aren't getting game time at u19s and aren't currently allowed to play that get lost. I think it is these players that are been proposed to play for their old amateur club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I think it is these players that are been proposed to play for their old amateur club Trevor Hunt mentioned players in the Championship in the latest press release. Nothing about SL U19s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender1 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Trevor Hunt mentioned players in the Championship in the latest press release. Nothing about SL U19s. I think it is these players that are been proposed to play for their old amateur club There we go again nothing ever seems clear, there has been Meetings, Press Releases, Forum Discussions, Private Discussions and there is still confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisholm 2 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 In my opinion how or why the DR went as it did, I know we don't know how all the clubs voted and are only going on what has been said on the forum, some clubs will have voted on principle and do not agree with the concept, others may not have seen a benefit, others may just not have voted Against?? Hull Clubs x 4 (No championship clubs in the area so no benefit) Cumbria x 3 (Due to their proximity to Championship clubs thought they could have seen a benefit) York Acorn (Due to their proximity to a Championship club thought they could have seen a benefit) Hunslet Warriors, Underbank, Leigh Miners, Salford Possible For (Due to Proximity with a Championship Club or clubs and saw a possible benefit) Normanton, Shaw Cross, Elland, Saddleworth, Featherstone, Leigh East, Dewsbury Celtic, Cumbria x 2, Oldham Saint Annes, Siddal, Rochdale Mayfield, Lock Lane, Wibsey, Gateshead, Hunslet Parkside, Thornhill, Woolston, Dewsbury Moor, Ince Possible For?? Pilkington, Milford, Wigan St Judes, Blackbrook, Bradford Dudley Hill, Stanley, Wigan St Pats, East Leeds, Thatto, Oulton, Stanningley, Crossfields Interestingly?? Were Rylands, Castleford Panthers, Eastmoor allowed a vote as they had not been voted into the NCL at the time of the deadline, if they did not vote this was counted as acceptance, allowed a vote they could have voted against meaning 23-23 Ince voted against Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.