Jump to content

Kai Pearce-Paul to the Newcastle Knights


Recommended Posts


34 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

So you want clubs in the UK to spend money and  invest to find young British talent......so they can go and play NRL?? - not like NRL clubs pay transfer fees is it so whats in it for clubs investing money?

Such a strange perspective on it!

Players moving on from the club that ‘found or developed’ them literally happens in every single sport on the planet.

Whats in it for clubs……winning competitions, having the best British players, salary cap relief as youngsters are relatively cheap etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scubby said:

Minimum SL wage for a squad player is £15k (A$27,000)

Minimum NRL wage for a squad player is £56k (A$100,000)

I think it’s too easy to say it’s the money though Scubby, though obvs money will come into it at some point. 
 

I do think young players now see the NRL as the place to go to if they want to be the best player they can be.

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as a Knights fan I'm absolutely delighted, strong suggestions that Pryce is a done deal as well so we'll have 4 young English lads in our top squad.

Both are under contract so I'm sure we'll be paying transfer fees for both but we have plenty left in our cap so that won't be an issue.

Hopefully Hodgson can actually spend some time on the field in the next few weeks so he gets a debut during Origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scubby said:

Little squeaker at the end of this article about Farnworth seems to confirm Newcastle have signed KPP from Wigan. Would be a shame for him to leave SL - Wigan have problems with retention for sure. Also heard the Knights want Will Pryce too on various sites.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-league/dolphins-broncos-in-fight-for-farnworth-c-6845701

https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/7741666/pryce-would-be-an-x-factor-signing-for-knights-dom-young/?cs=2503

 

Wigan were quite happy to take KPP from London's academy, so can't have too many complaints about Newcastle taking him from them.

I have a feeling he'll do very well out there. He's talented, obviously, but he also wants to learn and improve and is not afraid to move away from home to do so. 

Of course, there could be a lot more like him in the game, if RL was serious about developing in London...

Edited by nadera78
  • Like 2

"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

7 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

I think it’s too easy to say it’s the money though Scubby, though obvs money will come into it at some point. 
 

I do think young players now see the NRL as the place to go to if they want to be the best player they can be.

The problem is that clubs like Wigan have their junior squad players on such low wages that they are easy picking for NRL and RU clubs. This goes right back - I remember Chris Ashton was on peanuts despite being a regular in the Wigan first team and he was poached.

The RFL reduced the minimum salary for squad players to £15k during the pandemic. That is still in place and pretty shameful for a full time elite sport. 

Until we get money in the game to pay our players properly, they will get Aussie agents and develop over there. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

So you want clubs in the UK to spend money and  invest to find young British talent......so they can go and play NRL?? - not like NRL clubs pay transfer fees is it so whats in it for clubs investing money?

Why do you think the Kiwis have been largely competitive with the Aussies for the last 30 whatever years. They haven`t always had the amount of players they have now in the NRL but the ones they have had have always played in the NSWRL or NRL which means week-in week-out those players are playing in the best comp in the world. So when they put a Kiwi team together they were largely competitive.

If you end up with 20 or 30 players who are good enough to be chased by NRL clubs a) it probably means they are stand-out talents anyway and are likely to only get better, and b) it probably means when they are supplemented or supplement the best players in your competition you will a have a far greater chance of being competitive with or beating Australia.

You do that a few times, whether it be in WC`s or tours, and it will do far more for English League than losing a few dozen players.

I reckon even if you lost 50 players to over here it wouldn`t break your competition but boy would it give you some top-line players to choose from when it came to picking your national team.

Think big picture mate.

Edited by The Rocket
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

So you want clubs in the UK to spend money and  invest to find young British talent......so they can go and play NRL?? - not like NRL clubs pay transfer fees is it so whats in it for clubs investing money?

No I want UK clubs to invest in juniors because that's the best way to spread the game and increase the player pool. Whether they play in the NRL, SL, lower leagues or stay in the community game.

Inevitably they'll unearth some more stars of the game which can only be a positive, especially for the national team.

The NRL do sometimes pay a transfer fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Why do you think the Kiwis have been largely competitive with the Aussies for the last 30 whatever years. They haven`t always had the amount of players they have now in the NRL but the ones they have had have always played in the NSWRL or NRL which means week-in week-out those players are playing in the best comp in the world. So when they put a Kiwi team together they were largely competitive.

If you end up with 20 or 30 players who are good enough to be chased by NRL clubs a) it probably means they are stand-out talents anyway and are likely to only get better, and b) it probably means when they are supplemented or supplement the best players in your competition you will a have a far greater chance of being competitive with or beating Australia.

You do that a few times, whether it be in WC`s or tours, and it will do far more for English League than losing a few dozen players.

I reckon even if you lost 50 players to over here it wouldn`t break your competition but boy would it give you some top-line players to choose from when it came to picking your national team.

Think big picture mate.

I agree with the sentiment.  I would say 50 is a stretch (I know you said 'even if' 50).  But if it were 20/25 players across all positions playing well in the NRL plus the top 20 from the UK comp we would be very strong internationally. 

And any success internationally would compensate for that player loss in my opinion... we need to create a virtuous cycle of success, player development and commercial success/awareness/popularity around out sport.

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 3

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck to KPP if this comes to fruition - I think he's exactly the kind of player that could flourish down there. 

In terms of the wider impact this has - make no mistake, it's been a slow burner but this should be becoming a huge red flag to SL and its clubs. 

This has been discussed at length on other threads by some of us, but the issue for me has never been when your established SL players (Whitehead, Bateman, Graham, Ellis etc) go and test their arm in the NRL - that's almost inevitable these days. No, the big issue is the slow, but ever increasing, trend of young talent going down there - that really does make SL a feeder comp and once you make that the aspiration to young players it'll be hard to reverse that trend. 

Edited by hunsletgreenandgold
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still very raw, whilst showing a fair amount of potential so there’s pretty even arguments to be made for him to stay at Wigan and to leave for the NRL. 

It’s a good approach to recruitment for NRL clubs, though ultimately damaging clubs here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nadera78 said:

Of course, there could be a lot more like him in the game, if RL was serious about developing in London..

That is the whole point of it and it is not just in London - albeit it was disgraceful in sacking the Development Officers - there could be hell of a lot more even in the heartlands if more effort is put into the community game, it is all about formulating structures and giving the opportunities.

I once remember Billy Connolly stood outside of a block of flats in Glasgow and looking up he said, just maybe the best ever formula 1 racing driver could be sat up there now, but sadly like many people opportunity to try many different things never materialises.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

 No, the big issue is the slow, but ever increasing, trend of young talent going down there - that really does make SL a feeder comp and once you make that the aspiration to young players it'll be hard to reverse that trend. 

There was an strong argument by some on this site that having teams in North America would influence lots of kids to take up the game because it presented more of an opportunity for them to play a sport at the top level and be attracted to a place better than the North of England, now here is the crunch, there were those who said we have to accept this will eventuate and happen because the world is now a "global village" with relatively easy access to anywhere with modern day travel.

So how does that argument differentiate because it is Australia giving the opportunities and attracting young player's, it simply does not, I would not blame anyone in any profession with any drive and ambition to take up the opportunity if offered to test and better themselves.

And finally, if SL did become more of a "feeder comp" to the NRL where would you apportion the blame for that happenining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It’s a good approach to recruitment for NRL clubs, though ultimately damaging clubs here. 

Again Juggy, as I posed the question in my last post why should some young player's see it a better prospect for them and their career in moving to Aus, and whose fault is it that it is more attractive than pursuing a life in SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

There was an strong argument by some on this site that having teams in North America would influence lots of kids to take up the game because it presented more of an opportunity for them to play a sport at the top level and be attracted to a place better than the North of England, now here is the crunch, there were those who said we have to accept this will eventuate and happen because the world is now a "global village" with relatively easy access to anywhere with modern day travel.

So how does that argument differentiate because it is Australia giving the opportunities and attracting young player's, it simply does not, I would not blame anyone in any profession with any drive and ambition to take up the opportunity if offered to test and better themselves.

And finally, if SL did become more of a "feeder comp" to the NRL where would you apportion the blame for that happenining?

Because the NA teams would be in our League...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Because the NA teams would be in our League...

Rubbish Tommy, we are talking about individuals being given the opportunities wherever it may be, and if I may be so bold to suggest that you were one of the Champions of the "global village" in that it has to accepted in that the world is a smaller place than when some posters of a certain age were much younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with the sentiment.  I would say 50 is a stretch (I know you said 'even if' 50).  But if it were 20/25 players across all positions playing well in the NRL plus the top 20 from the UK comp we would be very strong internationally. 

And any success internationally would compensate for that player loss in my opinion... we need to create a virtuous cycle of success, player development and commercial success/awareness/popularity around out sport.

It`s what has always frustrated me. You should be far stronger than the Kiwis as they haven`t a fraction of the numbers playing League that are playing in your country, it is just the fact they happen to be next door to us and you aren`t.

imagine if your 40 000 whatever were next door to us, I suspect we would have seen a very different international scene over the last 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

It`s what has always frustrated me. You should be far stronger than the Kiwis as they haven`t a fraction of the numbers playing League that are playing in your country, it is just the fact they happen to be next door to us and you aren`t.

imagine if your 40 000 whatever were next door to us, I suspect we would have seen a very different international scene over the last 30 years.

But did the Kiwi's not have first call on many of the Pacific Island descendents which now have swapped aligence to their forefathers heritage of Tonga, Samoa, Fiji etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Rubbish Tommy, we are talking about individuals being given the opportunities wherever it may be, and if I may be so bold to suggest that you were one of the Champions of the "global village" in that it has to accepted in that the world is a smaller place than when some posters of a certain age were much younger.

Not at all. Keep the glitz and the glam in our league as much as possible, offer new opportunities that are as attractive as the NRL.

Ultimately whilst we are the same sport, the NRL is also our primary competition for Rugby League players. If good players are lost from Super League, regardless of which club, then the league as a competition becomes weaker. The global village just means that direct competition with the NRL is going to come even more into focus.

Super League needs to be attractive for players to stay here and for the best new players to be recruited. That benefits all clubs. Less fancied clubs in top competitions are still better options for many than top clubs in less attractive competitions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

It`s what has always frustrated me. You should be far stronger than the Kiwis as they haven`t a fraction of the numbers playing League that are playing in your country, it is just the fact they happen to be next door to us and you aren`t.

imagine if your 40 000 whatever were next door to us, I suspect we would have seen a very different international scene over the last 30 years.

All the kiwis play in a higher standard of competition though. Even when they picked players playing over here they were usually outstanding individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has loads of potential KPP but his billing seems to have somehow got well past his level of actual performances. He could be a very good player in time but he’s not there yet and as with any young player, you actually need to turn potential in to top class performances. I think he’d be better served staying here until his mid 20’s but he clearly wants to go ASAP. I’m not sure if the plan is to go for 2023 because he is under contract but we’ll see. 
 

I hope it works out for him and he doesn’t pay for rushing things (which I think he has done). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But did the Kiwi's not have first call on many of the Pacific Island descendents which now have swapped aligence to their forefathers heritage of Tonga, Samoa, Fiji etc.

We`ve always had a few Kiwis in the comp but I`d say very few actual PI born players, unless they were born in the PI and their parents had migrated to NZ, but even now there really aren`t many. But yes agreed even the few Kiwi`s we`ve had probably had some Islander blood, different story now with 46 % of players having PI and Kiwi heritage.

Edited by The Rocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

It`s what has always frustrated me. You should be far stronger than the Kiwis as they haven`t a fraction of the numbers playing League that are playing in your country, it is just the fact they happen to be next door to us and you aren`t.

imagine if your 40 000 whatever were next door to us, I suspect we would have seen a very different international scene over the last 30 years.

I think there's a bit more to it than that. NZ has a lot of Rugby players per se and a lot of great athletes. If it was just a numbers game and standard of competition then England and France RU would walk every RU World Cup. They don't and NZ are still the dominant team in that sport.

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
  • 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.