Whose job should it be to develop/expand the grassroots and amateur game

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Celtic Rooster said:

People keep saying the RFL should fund this and fund that and of course they should fund the development of the game, but they can't because there is no serious money in RL. Nearly all of the money that comes into the game goes to Super league clubs and they could not care less what happens to anybody else. I know there will be no SL players in the future because there will be no new players being developed at lower levels etc, and the SL clubs should realise that but they sign most of their players before they are 18. They don't care if adult RL below SL dies. Strangely enough the two "semi pro" clubs who seem to be doing the most to develop local players are the two Welsh clubs who don't have a pot to pee in.

That isnt really true though.

They have a couple of major income streams - government funding and England RL.

They havent optimised either.

[Spidey]

On 18/02/2018 at 8:30 AM, yipyee said:

Pro clubs should pay a fee to the amateur club that the player came from...

X amount once a FT contract signed 

X amount on 100 appearances 

RFL to pay a one off X amount for first England cap.

Whilst there's a danger of creating superclubs in the amateur leagues it would create a revenue stream and incentive to continue the good work of investing in junior development.

They do pay a fee along those lines. SL Debut or Champ Debut, 10+ league games, England Debut are some of the milestones as far as I know

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

That isnt really true though.

They have a couple of major income streams - government funding and England RL.

They havent optimised either.

I assume (so its really a question) also the Sky Try money which I guess they chose to pass to the clubs.

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I assume (so its really a question) also the Sky Try money which I guess they chose to pass to the clubs.

Yes, i did mean to add commercial income too tbh, and I assume using that in established areas was deemed to be a better return. The real challenge then is getting enough funding to support wider areas, but I suspect returns are not as cost efficient or immediate, but sometimes you need to look at yhe longer term imho.