Jump to content

Two leagues of ten


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If a wiganer who grew up playing Rugby League in Wigan, is the son of Wigan Rugby League legend Andy Farrell, nephew to Wigan captain Sean O’Loughlin, cousin to Wigan player Liam Farrell was never a league player I don’t know who is 

And went to John Fisher and played at Wigan St Pats from the age of 6 until u16s. Somehow though despite all that he was never a Rugby League player

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 minutes ago, Damien said:

And went to John Fisher and played at Wigan St Pats from the age of 6 until u16s. Somehow though despite all that he was never a Rugby League player

From which pro RL club did we lose him to union?

From where was he snatched, tempted, allured, charmed, seduced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

I think there is something in both of these points. I do think it is clear that these clubs use younger players that they develop - but is that as a result of hoovering up much of the best talent because they are seen as the 'best' clubs because they win the trophies? It's all a little chicken and egg - but in reality the majority of clubs, including Saints sign in far more players that they develop themselves. As you would expect. 

The bit I am interested in is do Saints, Wigan and Leeds do anything vastly different to other clubs (the top end ones I mentioned in particular) - or are they on a bit of a treadmill, benefiting from the grassroots game in their towns, benefitting from the historic success of the first team?

Of course it is all interlinked - but would it be possible for Salford to buy out Saints' youth setup and start winning comps because of it? My view is that no, they couldn't. And if that is the case - I'm not sure how strong the argument is that these clubs win because they have the best youth development.

 

In terms of on-field success the reason these clubs end up having a big advantage, if they do it properly at least, is that home-grown players are typically less of a salary cap burden than bought-in ones. Particularly during their early years. So the virtuous circle of getting the best kids, feeding into the first team, means you get more bang for your salary cap buck for the rest of the squad so you win from both sides - best kids, better 'outsiders' (and on top of which as long as you remain on top of the cycle you can get a top player to come to you for less than signing for Salford or Wakey say). These things all build up to quite a big advantage that the big three have - and I have to say it's not really clear why Warrington wouldn't similarly benefit nowadays.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, M j M said:

In terms of on-field success the reason these clubs end up having a big advantage, if they do it properly at least, is that home-grown players are typically less of a salary cap burden than bought-in ones. Particularly during their early years. So the virtuous circle of getting the best kids, feeding into the first team, means you get more bang for your salary cap buck for the rest of the squad so you win from both sides - best kids, better 'outsiders' (and on top of which as long as you remain on top of the cycle you can get a top player to come to you for less than signing for Salford or Wakey say). These things all build up to quite a big advantage that the big three have - and I have to say it's not really clear why Warrington wouldn't similarly benefit nowadays.

This is why I'm against the salary cap in its present form. It makes it nigh on impossible to break that stranglehold and cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, M j M said:

In terms of on-field success the reason these clubs end up having a big advantage, if they do it properly at least, is that home-grown players are typically less of a salary cap burden than bought-in ones. Particularly during their early years. So the virtuous circle of getting the best kids, feeding into the first team, means you get more bang for your salary cap buck for the rest of the squad so you win from both sides - best kids, better 'outsiders' (and on top of which as long as you remain on top of the cycle you can get a top player to come to you for less than signing for Salford or Wakey say). These things all build up to quite a big advantage that the big three have - and I have to say it's not really clear why Warrington wouldn't similarly benefit nowadays.

Yeah, I get the benefits, and I think Wire do benefit tbh, let's be honest, a few different key plays in rugby matches over the last decade and our trophy haul would have been outstanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Damien said:

This is why I'm against the salary cap in its present form. It makes it nigh on impossible to break that stranglehold and cycle.

This is a challenge. It does make it difficult to breakthrough against all these advantages - newer teams or teams with new investors would have to play a long game to be able to break through, and with P&R that could be a real risk. 

But it is also hard to argue against a system that heavily rewards having strong youth structures. 

It is where I think RL needs to stop looking at things like comp structures and focus on tweaks with things like the cap, development funding etc.  to make sure those things are balanced. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Yes your right its a 'chicken & egg' situation but the stats show that ultimately for continued & long term success its the best way to go. If other clubs want to match the success of those 3 clubs then at some point they have to get off the treadmill and focus on a slightly longer term goal rather than a season by season goal. They'll probably have to sacrifice being in a position to win SL for a couple of years while they allow more of their young players to fully establish themselves in the 1st team and to resist just buying in, but the long term benefits have proved to be there of taking this route.

Catalans have pushed themselves to the top of SL by trying to buy success, and while they'll probably be challenging again next year it wont last unless they continue to pay big money to buy in year after year after year which just isn't sustainable. In a couple of years from now when a lot of their current 1st team players have moved on they'll be back to being a mid-table team and they wont be able to replace them with good quality home grown ones, because they wont have many with much experience.

Will other clubs take this route to match the big 3, I seriously doubt it, not while we have a P&R system that could leave them in serious risk of relegation. But until they do we'll continue with the SL title being dominated by these 3 teams.

Taking Huddersfield as an example, I believe their junior set up is pretty good. Great facilities, very good coaches, good pathway to the first team but yet they can't compete with the top teams for the best players. What can they do that will allow that to happen? I know they normally end up with some of the Siddal lads each year but its usually only the ones that Leeds and Wigan don't want. Huddersfield are quite pro active when it comes to juniors but who would blame them if they instead spent money on the chance of immediate success rather than junior set up knowing full well they will always be chasing the left overs of the big teams?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without going through all the thread, in my opinion, if SL’s vision is not to become a one division 20 club league with clubs in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain and Serbia as well as England and France, then why isn’t it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Without going through all the thread, in my opinion, if SL’s vision is not to become a one division 20 club league with clubs in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain and Serbia as well as England and France, then why isn’t it?

Is the NRL vision to have clubs from China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines? If not then why isn't it?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Is the NRL vision to have clubs from China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines? If not then why isn't it?

Strange response, but, change that to teams from South Island, Fiji, PNG, Perth and Adelaide, then you are onto my way of thinking.

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Without going through all the thread, in my opinion, if SL’s vision is not to become a one division 20 club league with clubs in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain and Serbia as well as England and France, then why isn’t it?

Because that’s as daft as it sounds, most likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Damien said:

Weird as they are not in the NRL.

I don’t know if your vague and obtuse statements are arguing with me or not.

Yes I think the NRL should be aiming to be a wide trans Pacific league in 20 years and yes I think SL should be aiming to be a wide trans European league in 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Without going through all the thread, in my opinion, if SL’s vision is not to become a one division 20 club league with clubs in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain and Serbia as well as England and France, then why isn’t it?

Even if we did get to a point where there's a real appetite for semi-pro/pro clubs in those other countries mentioned we'd be better off shooting for a third professional competition somewhere than cramming them all into the one system.

England would also rather nobody else in Europe played RL so they don't have to actually get off their ###### and support some development work in their own backyard. The proposal behind this thread would cut both Welsh teams from the current structure and considering Wales is literally next door to England I think we can forget about the likes of Serbia making an appearance.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I don’t know if your vague and obtuse statements are arguing with me or not.

Yes I think the NRL should be aiming to be a wide trans Pacific league in 20 years and yes I think SL should be aiming to be a wide trans European league in 20 years.

Adding another NZ team, a team from PNG and a team from Fiji is quite different than what you want SL to do. It's far from an international league and it's odd that you don't see that. As is the way you add in Australian teams from Perth and Adelaide like they are equivalent to adding a team from Germany or Spain. Really strange.

I'm asking you why is the NRLs vision not adding teams from 8 countries like you wish SL to do? If you pose questions of others it's only fair that you answer them yourself. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damien said:

Adding another NZ team, a team from PNG and a team from Fiji is quite different than what you want SL to do. It's far from an international league and it's odd that you don't see that. As is the way you add in Australian teams from Perth and Adelaide like they are equivalent to adding a team from Germany or Spain. Really strange.

I'm asking you why is the NRLs vision not adding teams from 8 countries like you wish SL to do? If you pose questions of others it's only fair that you answer them yourself. 

 

Well, Europe is a continent and Australia is a continent. I was simply referring to land mass size and the simplicity of logistics.

Alternatively, rather than those European nations, I could have added Birmingham, Sheffield, London and a few others, but that would be a little small time thinking rather than the European destinations I suggested. Especially when in the grand scheme of things, in the infancy of any of the suggested expansion venues, be it UK or Europe, the players will almost exclusively be from the Pacific and the north of England anyway.

So rather than pose rhetorical reverse questioning of the NRL, what don’t you like about the idea of expansion into Europe? What on earth makes you think that whatever the NRL does, or does not do, should have any bearing on the ambition of the SL to be a grand continental competition?

You boys and girls up there seem so busy either copying or despising anything that the NRL does, you can’t see the forrest from the trees.

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sports Prophet said:

Well, Europe is a continent and Australia is a continent. I was simply referring to land mass size.

alternatively, rather than those European nations, I could have added Birmingham, Sheffield, London and a few others, but that would be a little small time thinking rather than the European destinations I suggested. Especially when in the grand scheme of things, in the infancy of any of the suggested expansion venues, be it UK or Europe, the players will almost exclusively be from the Pacific and the north of England anyway.

So what do you have against the idea then?

What on earth made you think that what the NRL does, or does not do, should have any bearing on the ambition of the SL to be a grand continental competition?

If its so great I'm asking why do you not want it for the NRL but you haven't answered. What do you have against that when it comes to the NRL? That would give you a small idea of why your suggestion is nonsense. The very fact that you won't answer shows you know that.

The ambition of SL is not to be a grand continental competition. I have never seen reference to that in any strategy piece. Sorry to shock you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

If its so great I'm asking why do you not want it for the NRL but you haven't answered. What do you have against that when it comes to the NRL? That would give you a small idea of why your suggestion is nonsense. The very fact that you won't answer shows you know that.

The ambition of SL is not to be a grand continental competition. I have never seen reference to that in any strategy piece. Sorry to shock you.

Oh please. I’ll you did was a common tactic of yours recently is to answer a question with an absolutely irrelevant question. 

I have highlighted in bold, another example of you not answering the question.

My question wasn’t whether SL has the ambition of being a grand continental competition, that much is obvious. The question was, why isn’t it the ambition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not the enemy either @Damien. I actually agree with more of what you say on this forum than you don’t.

Don’t go thinking that I will jump to the defence of the NRL over anything else, because I won’t. 

What the NRL, NFL, NBA or Premier League does or does not want to do with regards to expansion, should have very little to do with the ambition of the SL to expand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Oh please. I’ll you did was a common tactic of yours recently is to answer a question with an absolutely irrelevant question. 

I have highlighted in bold, another example of you not answering the question.

My question wasn’t whether SL has the ambition of being a grand continental competition, that much is obvious. The question was, why isn’t it the ambition?

The bit in bold is odd because I don't recall conversing with you at all lately. You seem to keep accusing people of things they haven't done and I've seen you do the same with others lately.

However in the bit you highlight in bold I didn't even ask a question which is even stranger. You posed the question "should have any bearing on the ambition of the SL to be a grand continental competition?" and I directly answered that is not the ambition of SL. It may be yours but its not SL's or the vast majority of fans. Your question had a false premise and I'm sorry you don't understand that. Its as valid as me asking does anything SL do have a bearing on whether the NRL wants to be a grand Asia-Pacific Competition.

Your entire premise is flawed and the fact you cant be bothered to apply the same reasoning to the NRL shows that. Yet you want others to waste their time explaining the blindingly obvious as to why your suggestion is laughable. Anyone can put pins on a map and come up with fantasy competitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

The bit in bold is odd because I don't recall conversing with you at all lately. You seem to keep accusing people of things they haven't done and I've seen you do the same with others lately.

However in the bit you highlight in bold I didn't even ask a question which is even stranger. You posed the question "should have any bearing on the ambition of the SL to be a grand continental competition?" and I directly answered that is not the ambition of SL. It may be yours but its not SL's or the vast majority of fans. Your question had a false premise and I'm sorry you don't understand that. Its as valid as me asking does anything SL do have a bearing on whether the NRL wants to be a grand Asia-Pacific Competition.

Your entire premise is flawed and the fact you cant be bothered to apply the same reasoning to the NRL shows that. Yet you want others to waste their time explaining the blindingly obvious as to why your suggestion is laughable. Anyone can put pins on a map and come up with fantasy competitions.

You need to re-read what I wrote. I never accused you of answering questions with a question in discussions with me. 

I also never suggested that the part I highlighted in bold was a question. I simply noted that was an example of you not answering a question.

If it’s not your vision of SL, why isn’t it? Why isn’t it the ambition of SL?

I don’t have to apply the same logic to the NRL, because that’s irrelevant to the question.

Why is my entire premise flawed? Rather than answer my original question with the same question of the NRL, perhaps a more sensible response would have been something like…

”well @Sports Prophet, the reason why I think the SL does not have the long term ambition to become a large scale European based professional sporting league can probably come down to one of two reasons.

1. Because the sport is primarily a game exclusive to the north of England and the sport at the highest level is pseudo governed by self interested club owners that well understand the increasing difficulty it to have clubs of small time cities stay relevant in an ever shrinking world with populations and commercial activity gravitating to major cities.

To set a plan to expand the sport into major European cities would only exacerbate that difficulty to remain relevant, putting them in danger of extinction at the elite level, so the owners of these clubs have no ambition to expand beyond the existing small time locations. Albeit at the expense of the long term future of the game.

or 2. The SL is a behemoth of an organisation that will continue to withstand the demands of globalisation that moves to eliminate the relevance of small town/city identity.”


Such a response may be beyond a few others on this forum, but not you I expect. All I expected from someone of your standard was to come up with a better response than a paltry “why don’t you do it?” Anyone can do that.

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Well, Europe is a continent and Australia is a continent. I was simply referring to land mass size and the simplicity of logistics.

Australia's not a continent.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...