Two leagues of ten

[The Blues Ox]

4 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

4000 should be a division average at worse case. Bradford, Widnes, Leigh, Newcastle and 2 french clubs will all be around or over this as a min, plus the 3 relegated and Fev/York wont be far away - I also believe Barrow would get close. The issue today is we lose players at 20/21 who get offered peanuts to stay with SL clubs who would develop into decent squad players given the chance but need game time and cant afford to live on the salary offered - if that offer was £25k at a SL2 club for a 20/21 yo then I feel we would get many more staying on in the game. We then have the reverse with PT players having a good trade and taking £15k pt contracts plus bonus etc which simply would not be available in tier 3, meaning they have a more difficult choice to make.

Out of the teams mentioned maybe only Bradord at a push would get near the 4k average attendance mark in any 2nd division. Even finding another 7 teams worth of full time players at 25k a player is going to mean a lot of extra money is going to have to come from somewhere although 25k would be on the low side as there are plenty of part time players already on that and more meaning its a no brainer for them to stay part time. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

8 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Out of the teams mentioned maybe only Bradord at a push would get near the 4k average attendance mark in any 2nd division. Even finding another 7 teams worth of full time players at 25k a player is going to mean a lot of extra money is going to have to come from somewhere although 25k would be on the low side as there are plenty of part time players already on that and more meaning its a no brainer for them to stay part time. 

Widnes averaged over 4k in the last pre-COVID Championship season. OK there were a couple of bumper attendances in there but it's not wildly unrealistic. 

[yipyee]

So clubs that know they will never be big enough for SL want to create a system that includes them under the SL banner as a FT club.

Everyone else wants to grow the sport by letting the big clubs progress whilst keeping a competative environment for all clubs at all levels.

I vote the latter

[whatmichaelsays]

16 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

It goes beyond the salary issue, the problems start at junior levels. There's a reason why Saints, Wigan & Leeds are the most successful SL teams, because they run the best academy set-ups in SL and arguable give the greatest opportunities to young players to progress and cement a place in their 1st team.

Before clubs start throwing money at their 1st team they should start sorting out their junior set-up's.

I agree with that - we don't have enough clubs contributing enough to the player pool and offering the sorts of opportunities and facilities that young players want, expect and arguably deserve. 

But Leeds, St Helens and Wigan can only ever accommodate so many players in their first team squad, and this is where the "spread the talent around" argument falls down. When those better players start coming off contract, it's not as if the smaller clubs can afford or compete with the better of that talent - because they're not as attractive a proposition and because they have to pay more to attract that talent as a result. They're then left with players who perhaps feel they need to look elsewhere for first team opportunities, players who the likes of Leeds, St Helens and Wigan are happy to let test their value on the open market, or players just looking for the best contract.

15 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

should clubs work to designated post code areas to recruit from?

No. That would only limit opportunities to young players. 

The problem here isn't that we have three clubs who have set a high standard for facilities, player welfare and first-team opportunities. The problem is that the rest haven't lifted to meet that standard. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The problem is that the rest haven't lifted to meet that standard. 

And that's been the problem for 30 odd years

[Saint Toppy]

16 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Taylor Pemberton and Wingfield to name but 2 are great prospects from a town that was denied an Academy - should clubs work to designated post code areas to recruit from?

Pemberton may be from Leigh but he chose Saints as his first club rather than Wigan.

Wingfield aint from Leigh, he's from St.Helens and they signed him from Blackbrook.

As for the post code idea how the hell do you manage that one. Who decides what clubs can recruit from what postcode based on where their family may live. Your forcing a young player to sign for a club they may not want to play for.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Pemberton may be from Leigh but he chose Saints as his first club rather than Wigan.

Wingfield aint from Leigh, he's from St.Helens and they signed him from Blackbrook.

As for the post code idea how the hell do you manage that one. Who decides what clubs can recruit from what postcode based on where their family may live. Your forcing a young player to sign for a club they may not want to play for.

And even worse potentially just pushing players into Union. Clubs are facing an increasing battle to keep the best youngsters in RL as it is without barriers like this.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Pemberton may be from Leigh but he chose Saints as his first club rather than Wigan.

Wingfield aint from Leigh, he's from St.Helens and they signed him from Blackbrook.

As for the post code idea how the hell do you manage that one. Who decides what clubs can recruit from what postcode based on where their family may live. Your forcing a young player to sign for a club they may not want to play for.

I proposed some sort of draft system to get around the problem whereby players are assigned to clubs in the same area as community clubs that they come from. There would be multiple clauses that still let the top teams pick up the best players but the top teams would then either pay some money to both the other team and the community club or something else. I had a load of different ideas for it but what it musnt do is stop the very best talent going to where they will develop best but what it also must do is stop the top teams signing players just incase they make it when those players may be better served playig at a lower level.

Thinking about it one idea would be top teams allowed to sign the best players bu then they are put under a contract where they can play for thier local team if their local team wants them but still train full time at the main club to aid their development. Almost like DR but with a more local twist.

[Saint Toppy]

12 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I proposed some sort of draft system to get around the problem whereby players are assigned to clubs in the same area as community clubs that they come from. There would be multiple clauses that still let the top teams pick up the best players but the top teams would then either pay some money to both the other team and the community club or something else. I had a load of different ideas for it but what it musnt do is stop the very best talent going to where they will develop best but what it also must do is stop the top teams signing players just incase they make it when those players may be better served playig at a lower level.

Thinking about it one idea would be top teams allowed to sign the best players bu then they are put under a contract where they can play for thier local team if their local team wants them but still train full time at the main club to aid their development. Almost like DR but with a more local twist.

Here's a novel idea, why don't we just let young players sign for the professional clubs they want to sign for, be it their boyhood club they've always followed as a fan or the club they see as giving them the best opportunity to fulfill their rugby dream.

Quota's, sharing, drafts etc. are just a total waste of time, effort & money. Those clubs complaining most about the best players always signing for the top clubs are generally the ones who just pay 'lip service' to their junior development. If they want to attract the best players in the future then its up to them to offer a pathway thats as good as or better than that offered by the top clubs.

As for compensation, rules are already in place that clubs have to pay compensation if they sign youngsters from another pro club (or semi-pro) up to a certain age if that club has already invested in their development. What your suggesting is they have to compensate another club just because the young players family happen to live in a certain area even though that pro / semi-pro club have played absolutely no part in that young players development.

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

And that's been the problem for 30 odd years

Indeed. 

But there seems to be this bizarre mindset that the problems with youth development are being caused by the clubs/people who are the best at youth development.

It's almost as if RL has a "crabs in the bucket" mentality. 

[The Blues Ox]

31 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Here's a novel idea, why don't we just let young players sign for the professional clubs they want to sign for, be it their boyhood club they've always followed as a fan or the club they see as giving them the best opportunity to fulfill their rugby dream.

Quota's, sharing, drafts etc. are just a total waste of time, effort & money. Those clubs complaining most about the best players always signing for the top clubs are generally the ones who just pay 'lip service' to their junior development. If they want to attract the best players in the future then its up to them to offer a pathway thats as good as or better than that offered by the top clubs.

As for compensation, rules are already in place that clubs have to pay compensation if they sign youngsters from another pro club (or semi-pro) up to a certain age if that club has already invested in their development. What your suggesting is they have to compensate another club just because the young players family happen to live in a certain area even though that pro / semi-pro club have played absolutely no part in that young players development.

Whichever way you look at it, what we currently have is not working and players are been lost to the game because of current policies. As a parent if Wigan speak to you and tell you your son is the next best thing and they want to sign him, what are you going to do? Now the top teams are saying this to parents of kids that they already know likely will not be good enough to make the grade but they don't want to risk missing out just incase they are one of the minority of players that does the unexpected and another team takes that chance. All that happens is that by the time those kids are 20/21 and are not deemed good enough, most championship teams will not take that risk because money is tight, and most of those players either go back to their community clubs or are lost to the game completley.

Its that selfish attitude that is slowly killing the game. Its a race to the bottom.

[The Blues Ox]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

Indeed. 

But there seems to be this bizarre mindset that the problems with youth development are being caused by the clubs/people who are the best at youth development.

It's almost as if RL has a "crabs in the bucket" mentality. 

Again they are part of the problem. Its easy to say you have the best youth development when you snap up every kid who has ever held a rugby ball. Its just the law of large numbers.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Whichever way you look at it, what we currently have is not working and players are been lost to the game because of current policies. As a parent if Wigan speak to you and tell you your son is the next best thing and they want to sign him, what are you going to do? Now the top teams are saying this to parents of kids that they already know likely will not be good enough to make the grade but they don't want to risk missing out just incase they are one of the minority of players that does the unexpected and another team takes that chance. All that happens is that by the time those kids are 20/21 and are not deemed good enough, most championship teams will not take that risk because money is tight, and most of those players either go back to their community clubs or are lost to the game completley.

Its that selfish attitude that is slowly killing the game. Its a race to the bottom.

It's certainly not a race to the bottom. That is what the alternative approaches like drafts are. That is simply clubs lower down the pecking order wanting the easy option rather than getting their act together.

The answer is not to peg back the elite clubs and force youngsters to go to mediocre setups just to make fans of Championship clubs happy. Why would any top youngster want not to be allowed to join a club or even tolerate it? For example a club like Wigan has top class dedicated facilities, sprint and athletics tracks, world class coaches and rub shoulders with top players etc. Contrast that with being forced to go to some other clubs and instead training on dog Park with mediocre facilities and coaches. That will certainly drive kids from the game.

Also on that point kids leave the game for all kinds of reasons, it is far too simplistic to lump it all on the reasons you cite. Very few of my u18s amateur team bothered to carry on at open age level and that certainly wasn't for the reasons you cite. There will always be a big drop out at that age for many reasons.

[whatmichaelsays]

8 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Again they are part of the problem. Its easy to say you have the best youth development when you snap up every kid who has ever held a rugby ball. Its just the law of large numbers.

Disagree. You have to look at the reasons why young people choose to sign for the "big three" clubs in this respect, over the rest. 

Do the big clubs offer better training facilities? If so, the big clubs are not the problem. 

Do the big clubs offer better coaching? If so, the big clubs are not the problem.

Do the big clubs offer better educational programmes to support those players who don't make it? If so, the big clubs are not the problem. 

Do the big clubs offer better experiences/opportunities? If so, the big clubs are not the problem. 

Do the big clubs offer better routes to the first team? If so, the big clubs are not the problem. 

You get the drift, but the core issue here is that you can't blame the bigger clubs for being more attractive to young players (and their parents), you can't blame the players (and their parents) for going where they feel their career is best served and you don't solve this issue by "levelling down" the big clubs or imposing (probably illegal) restrictions on where players can choose to play. If smaller clubs either can't or won't invest enough in the areas above, that is their issue and their consequences to deal with. 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Whichever way you look at it, what we currently have is not working and players are been lost to the game because of current policies. As a parent if Wigan speak to you and tell you your son is the next best thing and they want to sign him, what are you going to do? Now the top teams are saying this to parents of kids that they already know likely will not be good enough to make the grade but they don't want to risk missing out just incase they are one of the minority of players that does the unexpected and another team takes that chance. All that happens is that by the time those kids are 20/21 and are not deemed good enough, most championship teams will not take that risk because money is tight, and most of those players either go back to their community clubs or are lost to the game completley.

Its that selfish attitude that is slowly killing the game. Its a race to the bottom.

Why is it selfish for the bigger clubs to want all the best young players. Its not their fault they've invested time, effort & money into their junior set-ups that other clubs haven't. Its not their fault they can offer better coaching, facilities, pathways to the 1st team etc.

The fault lies with the clubs who don't offer such an attractive package to youngsters so constantly lose out when they're deciding who they want their first pro / semi-pro club to be. Instead of introducing rules like you suggest that 'level down', what the sport actually needs are rules that force all clubs to reach the levels that the top clubs currently provide. That doesn't just include coaching, facilities etc. it also includes for things like a pathway into the 1st team. Clubs who constantly 'buy' 1st team players who then block the route for the youngsters are far less attractive to join than one who has a history of promoting youth and giving them a chance to establish themselves in the 1st team. Its not all about money, its also about a clubs culture. Lets face it the culture at some clubs stinks when it comes to junior development and 1st team opportunity.

[The Blues Ox]

None of you are getting my argument. I have no problem with the best players going to the best set ups for reasons stated above although I would argue over those clubs offering better coaching or better educational prospects than others. The problem is simply the big clubs hovering up talent simply because they can knowing full well most of the kids they sign are not going to be good enough to make it. Hovering up talent when the player pool is already pretty small only serves to further weaken the game in the long run. Yeah for parents it sounds good their kids going to the big clubs but a couple of years after going there ask some of the parents how they feel when their kid is been passed from pillar to post with their confidence destroyed. Unfortunatley that is what lies in store for the majority of these kids snapped up from about 14 and above. Its ok though because those teams offer great facilities, and we wonder why the player pool is getting smaller year on year.

[Saint Toppy]

24 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

None of you are getting my argument. I have no problem with the best players going to the best set ups for reasons stated above although I would argue over those clubs offering better coaching or better educational prospects than others. The problem is simply the big clubs hovering up talent simply because they can knowing full well most of the kids they sign are not going to be good enough to make it. Hovering up talent when the player pool is already pretty small only serves to further weaken the game in the long run. Yeah for parents it sounds good their kids going to the big clubs but a couple of years after going there ask some of the parents how they feel when their kid is been passed from pillar to post with their confidence destroyed. Unfortunatley that is what lies in store for the majority of these kids snapped up from about 14 and above. Its ok though because those teams offer great facilities, and we wonder why the player pool is getting smaller year on year.

Those that don't make it wouldn't have made it anyway if they'd gone elsewhere other than one of the bigger clubs. And besides which wherever they end up they will have benefitted from the coaching, facilities, training along side top quality players, something they wouldn't have got had they not gone to those clubs in the first place.

I also think your massively overstating this whole hoarding thing. Clubs will only sign the number of players they need to sustain a team at each age level. No clubs have 40,50, 60 players in any one age group when they know they can only pick 17 each week. At most they'll have a squad of probably 23-25 players to pick from. The fact that some clubs have probably 20 really good quality youngsters while some only may have half a dozen is down to the reasons i've mentioned earlier in the attractiveness of some clubs to young players.

Rather than changing rules for the bottom of the age range a better solution is to change it at the top at 1st team level. Significantly cut the overseas quota numbers (say 3 or 4) and introduce a mandatory number of home grown players in your top 25 player squad (say 50-55%). That way every club must provide a pathway for youngsters to make it to the 1st team and far fewer find themselves being cut before having a chance to prove themselves at the top level.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

None of you are getting my argument. I have no problem with the best players going to the best set ups for reasons stated above although I would argue over those clubs offering better coaching or better educational prospects than others. The problem is simply the big clubs hovering up talent simply because they can knowing full well most of the kids they sign are not going to be good enough to make it. Hovering up talent when the player pool is already pretty small only serves to further weaken the game in the long run. Yeah for parents it sounds good their kids going to the big clubs but a couple of years after going there ask some of the parents how they feel when their kid is been passed from pillar to post with their confidence destroyed. Unfortunatley that is what lies in store for the majority of these kids snapped up from about 14 and above. Its ok though because those teams offer great facilities, and we wonder why the player pool is getting smaller year on year.

Where is the evidence of this "hoovering up" or hoarding of talent? 

It doesn't make any sense, be it from a financial perspective or a player development perspective, for clubs to sign-up talent that they don't believe can, at the very least, make a worthwhile contribution to the team at that respective age group. 

What I see is the bigger clubs casting a wide net when it comes to recruiting their talent, which might encroach on the "patch" of another club but again, that's just good recruitment. 

And it's not as if the smaller clubs necessarily lose out from that process anyway. Leeds seem to have at least 8-10 youth team players out on loan (mostly at Championship clubs) at any one time. 

[super major]

One of the problems with the academies and funding is that at the start of SL the then most successful teams were better able to fund and develop their academies. This was not their fault and they have really done a good job. The problem then arises of teams trying to get to that elite level without the money success brings, the attraction of joining a successful team and less certainty that the academy will last due to the possibility the club may be relegated

[Jughead]

Are we wise to stop players from moving to certain clubs based upon their birthplace and/or hometown? Should we stop players moving to the bigger clubs, where they’re going to be exposed to a better standard of environment (coaches, teammates, facility, game, expectation etc) and keep them at smaller clubs, some who don’t even currently have academies, in poorer conditions? Isn’t that the sort of race to the bottom thinking that’s left the sport in the hole it is in? 

Would the number of Cumbrian born players be better off now if they’d have stayed in Cumbria till eighteen and would Regan Grace even be playing Super League if it meant he had to stay at South Wales Scorpions because of his birthplace?

[Dave T]

What is it about Saints, Wigan and Leeds' youth development that makes them so much better than say Wire, Hull or Catalans?

As in right now, what is better about Saints RLFC's setup than those other clubs named? 

[dboy]

11 hours ago, Damien said:

And even worse potentially just pushing players into Union. Clubs are facing an increasing battle to keep the best youngsters in RL as it is without barriers like this.

Interesting.

Can you give some examples of young players choosing to go to union please?

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

Are we wise to stop players from moving to certain clubs based upon their birthplace and/or hometown? Should we stop players moving to the bigger clubs, where they’re going to be exposed to a better standard of environment (coaches, teammates, facility, game, expectation etc) and keep them at smaller clubs, some who don’t even currently have academies, in poorer conditions? Isn’t that the sort of race to the bottom thinking that’s left the sport in the hole it is in? 

Would the number of Cumbrian born players be better off now if they’d have stayed in Cumbria till eighteen and would Regan Grace even be playing Super League if it meant he had to stay at South Wales Scorpions because of his birthplace?

Short term maybe those players would be likely worse off but longterm those teams in that area would probably be better off thus bringing up the standard of the teams outside the top 4 or 5 clubs ad thus increasing the standard of the competition as a whole and making it more attractive to potentital sponsors. But its that short term thinking that has left the sport in the race to the bottom it is in. 

[Jughead]

31 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Short term maybe those players would be likely worse off but longterm those teams in that area would probably be better off thus bringing up the standard of the teams outside the top 4 or 5 clubs ad thus increasing the standard of the competition as a whole and making it more attractive to potentital sponsors. But its that short term thinking that has left the sport in the race to the bottom it is in. 

Would they? Money isn’t particularly abundant in Rugby League so it’s all nice that the big clubs give some money to the smaller clubs but it doesn’t seem realistic at all and how likely are clubs to spend such money when some players aren’t developing at the rate they would be at a Wigan or Leeds when they’re held prisoner by geography at Workington or Dewsbury?

[Damien]

9 hours ago, dboy said:

Interesting.

Can you give some examples of young players choosing to go to union please?

Iain Thornley and Liam Forsyth both went to Union from Wigan academy when the club wanted to keep them. Players like Chris Mayor also went to Union with Sale and there have certainly been others. Just about every top youngster that Wigan sign Sale are also after as it is. The club had a real battle to sign Umlya Hanley for example. That is before the Owen Farrells of this world.

Its a weird question you ask though because you obviously didn't read the post I replied to or the context. Young players will go to Union if they are told they can't sign for a top RL club and instead have to sign for a Championship club. They are already getting the offers to do so and forced drafts certainly won't help to keep them in the sport.