Kai Pearce-Paul to the Newcastle Knights

[Harry Stottle]

34 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

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.

I don't want to sound contradictory Rocket, but in November of 2019 I went to NZ on the GB RL tour and the support for resident Tongan descendents was enormous, there seems to be quite a good number to choose from, and that is not taking into account Fijians, Samoans etc.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

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.

When I was much younger the All Blacks was predominantly populated by Northern Hemisphere descendents i.e. White, and in RL the Kiwi's had hardly any white descendents being made up of Maori and Island descendents.

[The Rocket]

4 hours 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. 

I wouldn`t have thought 50 was beyond the realms of possibility if the player payment disparity continues to grow and NRL`s hunt for talent intensifies.

The thing for me is I find it hard to believe that there is any difference between the talent level and potential of English juniors than there are with juniors in Australia or any where else. Therefore out of those juniors there would be roughly the same proportion who are of NRL potential.

And when you`ve got probably the second biggest player pool in the world that means a lot of potential NRL standard players.

I think the Bailey Hodgson`s, Dom Young`s, Herbie, and probably Will Pryce are going to be the tip of the iceberg.

If you`re a talented kid in England I don`t think it will be hard to find an NRL club who will stick you in with a family, pay for everything and probably $20k on top of that and take a chance on you. Worst case scenario they send you home.

But as I said it`s all about numbers, and there is still a lot of kids playing League in England I gather.

And of course that doesn`t count the ones that will come over that are already established.

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

When I was much younger the All Blacks was predominantly populated by Northern Hemisphere descendents i.e. White, and in RL the Kiwi's had hardly any white descendents being made up of Maori and Island descendents.

Indeed Harry , when I resided in Upper Hutt , just north of Wellington in the mid 70's union was played by the white Kiwi's , League was the Maori and islanders excuse for a punch up 

[Padge]

7 hours 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.

Except the Aussies won't release them for internationals.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

On 19/05/2022 at 09:55, 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?

It differs because there was never any suggestion the players who might go out to play in NA were going to be the cream of the crop. It differs because this isn't young lads just wanting to go on a jolly for a couple of years - they actually recognise it's a much better opportunity for them. 

The blame if SL becomes a feeder comp sits firmly with the SL and the clubs themselves. 

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

It differs because there was never any suggestion the players who might go out to play in NA were going to be the cream of the crop. It differs because this isn't young lads just wanting to go on a jolly for a couple of years - they actually recognise it's a much better opportunity for them. 

The blame if SL becomes a feeder comp sits firmly with the SL and the clubs themselves. 

I would suggest that If Toronto had of survived and maintained a SL spot they would have been after the 'cream of the crop'.

Yes you are agreeing with me regards bettering themselves, but I was referring to people who used the argument that Toronto provided another opportunity and therefore more youngsters would take up the game, so why if the trend continues in that NRL clubs desire to offer opportunities to British youngsters that would not have the same effect.

Totally agree with were the blame should be layed and also include the RFL in that. Whether this band of merry men have just been remiss over the years that building a strong and vibrant game from the bottom up is the way to go, or they have been just to thick to see where the sport was heading, or just happy to sit in their comfort zone is open to debate but I suspect they are guilty of all three.

Nothing is more certain though that if these kids who have gone/going over there really make a mark, there will be far more NRL clubs sniffing around.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Davo5]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I would suggest that If Toronto had of survived and maintained a SL spot they would have been after the 'cream of the crop'.

Yes you are agreeing with me regards bettering themselves, but I was referring to people who used the argument that Toronto provided another opportunity and therefore more youngsters would take up the game, so why if the trend continues in that NRL clubs desire to offer opportunities to British youngsters that would not have the same effect.

Totally agree with were the blame should be layed and also include the RFL in that. Whether this band of merry men have just been remiss over the years that building a strong and vibrant game from the bottom up is the way to go, or they have been just to thick to see where the sport was heading, or just happy to sit in their comfort zone is open to debate but I suspect they are guilty of all three.

Nothing is more certain though that if these kids who have gone/going over there really make a mark, there will be far more NRL clubs sniffing around.

 

How do we know it won’t have the same effect,NRL clubs taking 17/18 yr old British players is a relatively recent occurrence so we won’t know if it will encourage more youngsters to take up the game,just as we don’t know if Superleague teams in Canada would have.

One thing we do know is the world is getting “smaller” and young people have in general broader expectations and so a sport based around a motorway in the North of England will continue to have less relevance to those young people and the ones following.

[Harry Stottle]

54 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

How do we know it won’t have the same effect,NRL clubs taking 17/18 yr old British players is a relatively recent occurrence so we won’t know if it will encourage more youngsters to take up the game,just as we don’t know if Superleague teams in Canada would have.

One thing we do know is the world is getting “smaller” and young people have in general broader expectations and so a sport based around a motorway in the North of England will continue to have less relevance to those young people and the ones following.

I know that Dav, I brought up Canada because a lot of people and I think you were included - apologies if I am wrong - stated that it could be good for our sport in that having other places other than just centered around the M62 corridor would eventuate in more Kids being drawn to the sport, you are right now though we don't know if that would have happened or will happen in Aus.

As for Aus, if these kids out there now prove to be good acquisitions I have no doubt that NRL clubs will be sniffing around to take a gamble on our better player's in the academies, just as Wigan, Saints, Leeds etc did when these lads were younger.

[Gav Wilson]

 

 

[Davo5]

8 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

 

 

The fact the salary cap has been stuck around its present level for years is bad enough but actually discussing reducing it is embarrassing.

[Dunbar]

If the £1.8M salary cap in 2002 had kept pace with inflation it would be £2.7M today and not £2.1M.

Clubs do have some extra leverage today with marquee players and other allowances but the fact remains that we have not retained our ambition as a sport and I think that is a pity.

Hopefully this will change if clubs can access extra revenue streams through innovations with IMG. 

[Mark S]

If clubs can’t afford to spend >90% of the cap they need to consider their position in the league. 

[Scubby]

13 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

The fact the salary cap has been stuck around its present level for years is bad enough but actually discussing reducing it is embarrassing.

That is embarrassing and who is driving even a discussion about that FFS?

[DavidM]

There shouldn’t be a salary cap 

[Davo5]

5 minutes ago, DavidM said:

There shouldn’t be a salary cap 

We do need a salary cap but I’d have one that rewards club produced players far  more than it presently does.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

We do need a salary cap but I’d have one that rewards club produced players far  more than it presently does.

Then open up academies to all 

[JM2010]

36 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Then open up academies to all 

As long as the salary cap stays the same with some SL clubs not willing to pay much to their young players then they are going to become easy pickings for NRL clubs. Why wouldn't they want to go

[Wigan Riversider]

8 hours ago, DavidM said:

There shouldn’t be a salary cap 

Quite correct.

Believe we have both posted our views on this before.

A restriction of trade that has held our game back for many years. Certainly since the millennium.