Jump to content

Fewer than 17 players


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Interestingly, spending more money on the field and making the product better is something people are crying out for. So many contradictions.

Oh I totally agree, huge amounts of contradictions.

But entirely from my POV, after a decade of no p&r the on field product was superb. 

It's poorer now after 4 years of p&r (from top to bottom it's poorer)

Again. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Pretty sure Fev work closely with Fev Lions but as twig says the players need to be good (and committed) enough to be of use. Also I'm unclear as to the rules but once you sign 'Pro' don't you need permission to return to the 'amateur' ranks? I doubt players potentially swapping and changing would go down well with the administrators.

As long as you don’t sign as a contracted professional it’s okay. You can sign pro using a “Terms & Condition” player (ie pay as you play) which can allow fluid movement between the two (I’ve not dealt with registrations for a couple of seasons so I could be wrong - but that’s how I understand it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Pretty sure Fev work closely with Fev Lions but as twig says the players need to be good (and committed) enough to be of use. Also I'm unclear as to the rules but once you sign 'Pro' don't you need permission to return to the 'amateur' ranks? I doubt players potentially swapping and changing would go down well with the administrators.

The irony of RL building barriers between paid and unpaid players.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, terrywebbisgod said:

So you think pro clubs don't keep track of open age players.

That wasn’t my point. I think some don’t build lasting relationships with their local clubs - there would be a lot to gain from that investment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That wasn’t my point. I think some don’t build lasting relationships with their local clubs - there would be a lot to gain from that investment. 

Indeed there would be but you will always have amateur clubs stating that club x are getting more than their own club.

It's a fine balance and it's something that I think puts many clubs off.

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Pretty sure Fev work closely with Fev Lions but as twig says the players need to be good (and committed) enough to be of use. Also I'm unclear as to the rules but once you sign 'Pro' don't you need permission to return to the 'amateur' ranks? I doubt players potentially swapping and changing would go down well with the administrators.

Didn't Fev sign a player who was on fire in pre season games but ended up back at Fev Lions a few weeks into the season?

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, terrywebbisgod said:

Didn't Fev sign a player who was on fire in pre season games but ended up back at Fev Lions a few weeks into the season?

correct something changed at work so couldn't get to sat morn training and he would have to miss some match days  on sunday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Ant said:

Oh I totally agree, huge amounts of contradictions.

But entirely from my POV, after a decade of no p&r the on field product was superb. 

It's poorer now after 4 years of p&r (from top to bottom it's poorer)

Again. IMO.

Would that year 10 happen to coincide with a rather impressive year for your club Ant? ;)

I think we have selective memory somewhat, and I can guarantee that if we went back to 2013 we would have had similar criticisms of the game and the standards.

I find this another of the contradictions we referred to. There is a theory that P&R leads to teams making short term decisions and over-investing on the field - but surely this would mean that the standards on the field would perhaps be higher than if they didn't have P&R. So I find it odd that people state that standards are lower on the field due to P&R. 

I do buy the other arguments about financial stability etc. but back in 2013 the financial position of clubs was pretty poor. I also buy the investing in England RL youth point, but that is a different one to standards on field. Some people think Wire should give Patton more gametime, despite the fact that he is not as good as other halves. That may be admirable, but that isn't going to raise standards above a club signing the best they can each year.

I think the P&R piece being linked to on-field quality is a red-herring, I think the clear issue on standards is that we are much poorer than our NRL counterparts, due to their TV and corporate deals and the low value of the pound compared to 10-15 years ago. This is why I welcome a re-focusing of efforts by SLE, whether they will be good enough to deliver som of this improvement we will see, but I don't buy that P&R has been the trigger for a decline n the comp - indeed if there has been a true decline rather than a perceived one - remember two of our clubs did beat Brisbane and Cronulla just over 12 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Would that year 10 happen to coincide with a rather impressive year for your club Ant? ;)

I think we have selective memory somewhat, and I can guarantee that if we went back to 2013 we would have had similar criticisms of the game and the standards.

I find this another of the contradictions we referred to. There is a theory that P&R leads to teams making short term decisions and over-investing on the field - but surely this would mean that the standards on the field would perhaps be higher than if they didn't have P&R. So I find it odd that people state that standards are lower on the field due to P&R. 

I do buy the other arguments about financial stability etc. but back in 2013 the financial position of clubs was pretty poor. I also buy the investing in England RL youth point, but that is a different one to standards on field. Some people think Wire should give Patton more gametime, despite the fact that he is not as good as other halves. That may be admirable, but that isn't going to raise standards above a club signing the best they can each year.

I think the P&R piece being linked to on-field quality is a red-herring, I think the clear issue on standards is that we are much poorer than our NRL counterparts, due to their TV and corporate deals and the low value of the pound compared to 10-15 years ago. This is why I welcome a re-focusing of efforts by SLE, whether they will be good enough to deliver som of this improvement we will see, but I don't buy that P&R has been the trigger for a decline n the comp - indeed if there has been a true decline rather than a perceived one - remember two of our clubs did beat Brisbane and Cronulla just over 12 months ago.

Not sure if you are you are promoting the ideas that it would be good for the game if SL clubs being 'richer' would allow them to recruit better players from overseas and/or, that simply paying our own players more would make them better? Neither stacks up for improving the national team or playing standards of our current players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not sure if you are you are promoting the ideas that it would be good for the game if SL clubs being 'richer' would allow them to recruit better players from overseas and/or, that simply paying our own players more would make them better? Neither stacks up for improving the national team or playing standards of our current players.

People are moaning that the standard has dropped. The game is poorer so can affod to buy fewer top drawer players, or keep them in our comp, or attract them in the first place.

10 to 15 years ago we didn't have many British lads going to the NRL.

But there is the risk of affecting the quality of the England team as I alluded to.

More money means:

- sign more quality imports

- have fewer of our stars going to play NRL

- have fewer of our stars leaving for other sports

- attract more players to the game in the first place

 

Getting rid of relegation doesn't do any of those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Getting rid of relegation allows clubs to have the stability and space to focus on marketing, creating better facilities, invest in youth development,  blood young players, creates a better product. 

Which in turn makes the game more attractive, brings in more money and creates more better young players.

And that in turn allows more to be spent on those things you mention. 

 

The opposite of that hasn't happened over less than a decade though.

In fact you could argue that you may get some short term dips in quality as you give the youth a chance rather than the ready made signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Under franchising we saw the number of overseas players in SL go down the number of young British players go up and the change to P+R saw fewer academies more overseas players and fewer British players playing in SL. 

So? We were talking about playing standards in that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes, there's a clear correlation between the effort, investment and focus on youth development and the standard of the competition

I can't keep up with all the contradictions.

If P&R leads to clubs investing in ready made players right here and now, I don't see how that standard is worse than one where clubs are investing in the longer term by blooding youth and developing local talent.

I agree it puts the British game in a stronger position overall, but that is a different point.

We can't have it both ways. If just investing in all the good things you list gives an immediate return on the field, everybody would do that instead of signing players to be better on the field.

People really can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

That's a pretty spurious argument really. 

Ready made players are ready made it doesn't mean that they are better than the developed players would be. 

The attractiveness of a 25 year old Queensland cup player isn't that he is better than a 19 year old academy player could be it's that he doesn't require years of investment before pay off and he can play tomorrow for certain.

Your argument seems to assume that a)there would be this dumping of large amounts of youngster in to the first team when it was more like a slow churn mitigating their effect on the standard, and also B) that the imported players would be better than these youngsters rather than in some instances inferior but cheaper overall and of a guaranteed quality.

Well if they are cheaper that also doesn't support the claim that clubs over-spend on these players surely?

The interesting point here is that many people would probably look back with rose tinted glasses on at Super League in 2003 as better standards than now. 

In 2013 they looked back longingly at ten years earlier, despite that now being heralded as halcyon days now.

In 2003 we had basket cases like Halifax in there. In 2013, we had Bradford in the middle of their woes and London on their ass. This year we have weak teams. All under different systems.

The biggest difference between 2008 and now, is the financial might of the NRL compared to SL - that is what needs to be addressed. If the SL clubs decide they want to banish relegation to provide stability, so be it, but it is dangerous if that is as far as the plan goes. The game here didn't get richer during that 6 year licensing period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

Overspending on players isn't really the issue it's the deprioritization of everything else. 

Cool, but this isn't what people say, or what I am talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2018 at 11:24 PM, dixiedean said:

Didn't realise that. No doubt if Dewsbury go down on points difference that would re inforce my point. Meanwhile Halifax have a reserve side, and Keighley turned out a Second team against Scotland under 21's today.

No doubt players in both sides might have preferred an all expenses paid trip to Canada rather than a curtain raiser before a game with West Wales.

Am arguing for easier short term loans, rather than criticising Dewsbury here btw.

All super league and championship clubs should have either a reserve team or an under 21s plus an academy. With a set number of over age players.

If they cannot then they should be dropped from the competition. The current system is not functioning.

Having said that, the RU have overspent £40+ million in a stand at Twickers. Chance would be a fine thing.  In fact the RFU have blown all the money from their world cup, and wasted it on artificial pitches. Bonkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2018 at 12:15 PM, paulwalker71 said:

I read that Featherstone took the conscious decision to run with a squad of 21 players, preferring 'quality over quantity'. I suppose the hope was that four dual-reg players would be showing up from Leeds every week to pad out the squad.

With Leeds injury problems that isn't happening right now - nor should it as those players are quite rightly needed at Leeds. This leaves a very threadbare squad - four injuries, which is hardly unexpected at this point of a season - and they are down to the bare 17.

If this is all true, then I'd say that Featherstone have brought this on themselves. They gambled on not getting many injuries, plus being supported by Leeds Rhinos, and it has left them in this situation.

Is this why Hetherington and Leeds are keen to oppose the new proposals? Leeds benefiting from feeder clubs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anyone kicks off or takes this the wrong way, does anyone think that part time players playing regularly against full-time players might contribute to teams struggling to raise 17 players through more injuries?

I know squads are smaller and rely on DR, but there are four full-time teams, so that's 8 matches at a higher intensity on top of a very tough division anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.