Who will have an A licence and why?

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

There is that danger certainly. I know I have been told by people at Wigan that the fact RL clubs can sign players professionally before RU clubs is a huge advantage that has helped keep players in the game. As the game struggles to compete financially it would be stupid to give up an advantage like this.

We are fortunate that realistically our only competition is Sale and Newcastle for that since the demise of Leeds/Yorkshire Carnegie/Tykes from the pro ranks.

To reverse that though, how many Union youngsters are we signing or actively scouting. I'm not even thinking going to South Wales even, across Yorkshire and Lancashire there are thousands of Union players in junior teams.

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We are fortunate that realistically our only competition is Sale and Newcastle for that since the demise of Leeds/Yorkshire Carnegie/Tykes from the pro ranks.

To reverse that though, how many Union youngsters are we signing or actively scouting. I'm not even thinking going to South Wales even, across Yorkshire and Lancashire there are thousands of Union players in junior teams.

That's kind of true but more and more RL youngsters now dip their toe in RU to give more options as it pays better. As they hit their pathways they get flagged up in their systems.

Undoubtedly the game can do more to cast its net wider. It always can.

 

[Rach]

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

There is that danger certainly. I know I have been told by people at Wigan that the fact RL clubs can sign players professionally before RU clubs is a huge advantage that has helped keep players in the game. As the game struggles to compete financially it would be stupid to give up an advantage like this.

It's been my experience that plenty of our youngsters that are excelling in rugby league at the ages of 12 / 13, tend to be all round athletes who typically excel ( and participate ) in a number of different sports and at some point they will need to make that decision which they would like to pursue at a higher level , with that decision no doubt influnced by the opportunities afforded to them by professional clubs / higher level development at that paticular moment in time.

No one is suggesting of following the football route of signing kids up at 5 or 6 which is just madness but their needs to be a clear and more importantly consistant development pathway to a pro contract that will encourage talented young players make RL their sport of choice , not the current structure that seems to change regularly on a whim ...

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Rach

[David Dockhouse Host]

52 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course. And if you're facing stiff competition from those organisations then you have to be more ingenious in both your offering and how you look for players.

All teams recruit in the same areas pretty much, it's a small pool.

All teams look for players from all areas, it isn't lack of looking it's the fact the big 3 will always be the biggest attraction.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's kind of true but more and more RL youngsters now dip their toe in RU to give more options as it pays better. As they hit their pathways they get flagged up in their systems.

Undoubtedly the game can do more to cast its net wider. It always can.

 

I'd obviously prefer we looked to RL players further afield, but it does seem to be a particularly untapped resource. Particularly so in Yorkshire given the dearth of RU academies.

Perhaps I'm biased but whilst at school we played RU against other schools stacked with lads in the Sale, Worcester, Leicester, Newcastle etc academies, including a number of lads now playing for England, yet because we had no top flight club nearby our best players were rarely being picked up; even though we regularly beat these other teams and reached finals. The only one's who have ended up in League academies were because they also played League too. 

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

All teams recruit in the same areas pretty much, it's a small pool.

All teams look for players from all areas, it isn't lack of looking it's the fact the big 3 will always be the biggest attraction.

That hasn't been my experience, I've generally seen a much more localised approach (which should be impossible given how already congested RL land is), particularly from the non-big 3 clubs.

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Is there not a danger we leave the door open for RU to step in and take the cream of the crop before our clubs are even allowed to make an offer. 

You might lose 1 or 2,but generally no.

[Davo5]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That hasn't been my experience, I've generally seen a much more localised approach (which should be impossible given how already congested RL land is), particularly from the non-big 3 clubs.

Mine neither,I doubt it’s a coincidence that Hull have forged a link with Whitehaven in regards to coaching clinics for the areas youth players resulting in the Humberside club signing a couple of those players.

Newcastle have a bigger presence in West Cumbria than some Superleague clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

The opening word, perhaps next time just read the rest first. 

I read all of it, have you read it back?

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Mine neither,I doubt it’s a coincidence that Hull have forged a link with Whitehaven in regards to coaching clinics for the areas youth players resulting in the Humberside club signing a couple of those players.

Newcastle have a bigger presence in West Cumbria than some Superleague clubs.

Indeed, and whilst having a very large area to pick from already in Leeds itself, the Rhinos sign from across the whole of West Yorkshire. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That hasn't been my experience, I've generally seen a much more localised approach (which should be impossible given how already congested RL land is), particularly from the non-big 3 clubs.

Ime the preference is local talent, teams would prefer players lived close, it doesn't mean they discard players from further afield, Saints have quite a few from Cumbria, but this relies on parents (usually) taking them training two nights a week, much more difficult  if you live a 2 hour drive away.

So I would say yes they concentrate locally, they fish were most the fish are but also consider a wider area.

Other wider areas and markets such as RU may be fruitful occasionally but not enough to build a squad regularly.

So yes local is the easiest recruitment area. 

[Saint Toppy]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Then that is up to the RFL to allow clubs that wish to run an academy to do so.

Which is exactly what I agreed with in the previous threads about academy licences. I’ve long argued that an academy should be mandatory for all SL clubs and that clubs should be measured on how well they develop those youngsters and bring them through to their 1st team and let them then establish themselves as 1st team players.

Too many clubs just see their youngsters as squad fillers, there to cover for injuries and they automatically buy in new. It’s no coincidence that the 3 most successful clubs are the ones with the 3 best academies and the ones who continually promote from within as their first priority and only buy in when they don’t have an academy player for that position at that time.

[Derwent Parker]

15 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

It’s up to the rest of the clubs to improve their academy set ups to match the best teams, then youngsters will have a genuine choice of who to sign for. Now most just have maybe 4-5 top ones to pick from, hopefully the lure of an A licence may see 10-12 top academies in the future

It's an unfair system -right thru the leagues.

The Top teams get almost 2M central Funding and they also are allowed Academies.

The Lower teams dont get much central Funding and they also are NOT allowed Academies.

Back in the days of Eddie and Stevo - I remember Stevo doing a piece on the country as a whole including the Amateur clubs.  I think it was an aussie plan

He said that hypothetical borders should be drawn around all the pro clubs. And the local amateur clubs therein each border should classed similar to that particular pro teams a,b,c, or d team etc.

From there: -

If/When a player decides at any point, he wants to turn pro/semi pro, then

1] He should sign for his local club.

2} If not , then a team ie a SL team from another area should pay a fee. [Like a transfer]

3} For arguments sake in case of amateur players moving around - its where you played your first Rugby.

A good example would be -

Leeds [A Top team, with huge CF and an academy], close to Hunslet [Not a Top team, with little CF and no academy] if a player from Hunslet Parkside amateur team [future star] decides to turn pro he would not be blamed for going to Leeds or even another Top Club Wigan Saints etc.

But his own local team have lost out - If a Fee is charged for signing elsewhere, then the Hunslet team will at least be compensated. This would allow the teams to build via the compensation in loss of the players

I Just used Leeds as an example as it is a SL next to an L1 team - my area has no SL presence.

If the RFL are not going to allow all teams to have A teams or academies they should not allow all the teams with the huge CF to hoover up all the future prospects from all the other areas.

Remember as Stevo said using the border system, all teams would treat equal which is something rare in the RFL and it is not just about SL teams - it could be teams in same leagues.

You could have team X in league one with no amateur teams and team Y with a good strong amateur system but team X offers a lad more money, so he moves to X - this is right for the player but wrong in principle. 

We don't have a transfer system now - but it could be set up just for the initial signing pro

 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

It's an unfair system -right thru the leagues.

The Top teams get almost 2M central Funding and they also are allowed Academies.

The Lower teams dont get much central Funding and they also are NOT allowed Academies.

Back in the days of Eddie and Stevo - I remember Stevo doing a piece on the country as a whole including the Amateur clubs.  I think it was an aussie plan

He said that hypothetical borders should be drawn around all the pro clubs. And the local amateur clubs therein each border should classed similar to that particular pro teams a,b,c, or d team etc.

From there: -

If/When a player decides at any point, he wants to turn pro/semi pro, then

1] He should sign for his local club.

2} If not , then a team ie a SL team from another area should pay a fee. [Like a transfer]

3} For arguments sake in case of amateur players moving around - its where you played your first Rugby.

A good example would be -

Leeds [A Top team, with huge CF and an academy], close to Hunslet [Not a Top team, with little CF and no academy] if a player from Hunslet Parkside amateur team [future star] decides to turn pro he would not be blamed for going to Leeds or even another Top Club Wigan Saints etc.

But his own local team have lost out - If a Fee is charged for signing elsewhere, then the Hunslet team will at least be compensated. This would allow the teams to build via the compensation in loss of the players

I Just used Leeds as an example as it is a SL next to an L1 team - my area has no SL presence.

If the RFL are not going to allow all teams to have A teams or academies they should not allow all the teams with the huge CF to hoover up all the future prospects from all the other areas.

Remember as Stevo said using the border system, all teams would treat equal which is something rare in the RFL and it is not just about SL teams - it could be teams in same leagues.

You could have team X in league one with no amateur teams and team Y with a good strong amateur system but team X offers a lad more money, so he moves to X - this is right for the player but wrong in principle. 

We don't have a transfer system now - but it could be set up just for the initial signing pro

 

Delusional, frankly. Is it even worth more consideration than that?

[bobbruce]

32 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

It's an unfair system -right thru the leagues.

The Top teams get almost 2M central Funding and they also are allowed Academies.

The Lower teams dont get much central Funding and they also are NOT allowed Academies.

Back in the days of Eddie and Stevo - I remember Stevo doing a piece on the country as a whole including the Amateur clubs.  I think it was an aussie plan

He said that hypothetical borders should be drawn around all the pro clubs. And the local amateur clubs therein each border should classed similar to that particular pro teams a,b,c, or d team etc.

From there: -

If/When a player decides at any point, he wants to turn pro/semi pro, then

1] He should sign for his local club.

2} If not , then a team ie a SL team from another area should pay a fee. [Like a transfer]

3} For arguments sake in case of amateur players moving around - its where you played your first Rugby.

A good example would be -

Leeds [A Top team, with huge CF and an academy], close to Hunslet [Not a Top team, with little CF and no academy] if a player from Hunslet Parkside amateur team [future star] decides to turn pro he would not be blamed for going to Leeds or even another Top Club Wigan Saints etc.

But his own local team have lost out - If a Fee is charged for signing elsewhere, then the Hunslet team will at least be compensated. This would allow the teams to build via the compensation in loss of the players

I Just used Leeds as an example as it is a SL next to an L1 team - my area has no SL presence.

If the RFL are not going to allow all teams to have A teams or academies they should not allow all the teams with the huge CF to hoover up all the future prospects from all the other areas.

Remember as Stevo said using the border system, all teams would treat equal which is something rare in the RFL and it is not just about SL teams - it could be teams in same leagues.

You could have team X in league one with no amateur teams and team Y with a good strong amateur system but team X offers a lad more money, so he moves to X - this is right for the player but wrong in principle. 

We don't have a transfer system now - but it could be set up just for the initial signing pro

 

So you want anyone playing for a local amateur team to be effectively owned by the local pro club. 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Derwent Parker said:

It's an unfair system -right thru the leagues.

The Top teams get almost 2M central Funding and they also are allowed Academies.

The Lower teams dont get much central Funding and they also are NOT allowed Academies.

Back in the days of Eddie and Stevo - I remember Stevo doing a piece on the country as a whole including the Amateur clubs.  I think it was an aussie plan

He said that hypothetical borders should be drawn around all the pro clubs. And the local amateur clubs therein each border should classed similar to that particular pro teams a,b,c, or d team etc.

From there: -

If/When a player decides at any point, he wants to turn pro/semi pro, then

1] He should sign for his local club.

2} If not , then a team ie a SL team from another area should pay a fee. [Like a transfer]

3} For arguments sake in case of amateur players moving around - its where you played your first Rugby.

A good example would be -

Leeds [A Top team, with huge CF and an academy], close to Hunslet [Not a Top team, with little CF and no academy] if a player from Hunslet Parkside amateur team [future star] decides to turn pro he would not be blamed for going to Leeds or even another Top Club Wigan Saints etc.

But his own local team have lost out - If a Fee is charged for signing elsewhere, then the Hunslet team will at least be compensated. This would allow the teams to build via the compensation in loss of the players

I Just used Leeds as an example as it is a SL next to an L1 team - my area has no SL presence.

If the RFL are not going to allow all teams to have A teams or academies they should not allow all the teams with the huge CF to hoover up all the future prospects from all the other areas.

Remember as Stevo said using the border system, all teams would treat equal which is something rare in the RFL and it is not just about SL teams - it could be teams in same leagues.

You could have team X in league one with no amateur teams and team Y with a good strong amateur system but team X offers a lad more money, so he moves to X - this is right for the player but wrong in principle. 

We don't have a transfer system now - but it could be set up just for the initial signing pro

 

For a start any restrictions on who you can sign for and who you can’t is almost certainly illegal under UK law as a restriction of trade.

leave Steve and his dumb ideas to retirement 

[Derwent Parker]

26 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

So you want anyone playing for a local amateur team to be effectively owned by the local pro club. 

Didn't say that - I Said the area team, that the player comes from is compensated by the outsider team who because of better finances is looking elsewhere instead of their own area.  Basically, Fish in your own pool.

The RFL should be looking at the game as a whole - Letting /helping the Big 3 teams get even bigger, richer and better and hoovering up all the future stars etc is not good for the game.  They should be trying to bring the rest along with them.

Having 3 teams out of the 37 that nobody else can touch is not good [ its just good for them 3] 

Like this year in Champ - nobody can look at Leigh they have been Brilliant [great time to be a Leigh fan] but the Comp was over from week 1.

The NFL with their draft system [which won't work here] - works in a way that the poorest team gets first choice of players, and the best team gets last choice etc.

I know it's a different sport, different money, different country but the fact is the NFL powers that be are trying to get the teams at or near the same standards, we do the opposite.

When the Sky money was cut - it was reduced from the poorest teams, - That is the OPPOSITE from trying to get the teams at or near the same standards.

Saints, Wigan, Leeds are already favs to win next year - We/RFL need to be bettering the others - We can't have the NFL draft system, but the RFL should be trying to help the rest catch up or the future SL seasons are going to be as Pointless as this year's Championship especially with P&R stopping.

[bobbruce]

Just now, Derwent Parker said:

Didn't say that - I Said the area team, that the player comes from is compensated by the outsider team who because of better finances is looking elsewhere instead of their own area.  Basically, Fish in your own pool.

The RFL should be looking at the game as a whole - Letting /helping the Big 3 teams get even bigger, richer and better and hoovering up all the future stars etc is not good for the game.  They should be trying to bring the rest along with them.

Having 3 teams out of the 37 that nobody else can touch is not good [ its just good for them 3] 

Like this year in Champ - nobody can look at Leigh they have been Brilliant [great time to be a Leigh fan] but the Comp was over from week 1.

The NFL with their draft system [which won't work here] - works in a way that the poorest team gets first choice of players, and the best team gets last choice etc.

I know it's a different sport, different money, different country but the fact is the NFL powers that be are trying to get the teams at or near the same standards, we do the opposite.

When the Sky money was cut - it was reduced from the poorest teams, - That is the OPPOSITE from trying to get the teams at or near the same standards.

Saints, Wigan, Leeds are already favs to win next year - We/RFL need to be bettering the others - We can't have the NFL draft system, but the RFL should be trying to help the rest catch up or the future SL seasons are going to be as Pointless as this year's Championship especially with P&R stopping.

That is exactly what you are saying. Say for example I play for an amateur team but the local pro club hasn’t signed me. Then say another pro clubs offers me a contract under your system I can’t sign for them unless my local pro club agrees to it. 

[Derwent Parker]

48 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That is exactly what you are saying. Say for example I play for an amateur team but the local pro club hasn’t signed me. Then say another pro clubs offers me a contract under your system I can’t sign for them unless my local pro club agrees to it. 

Nope! 

Didn't say that - I Said the local team, that the player comes from is compensated by the outsider team. 

Did not say the local pro club had to agree to it. 

If an Amateur player is signed from his own area - NO FEE.

Basically, Fish in your own pool.

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Sorry but that’s just rubbish used by some clubs who merely pay lip service to youth development.

The best sign up to the big clubs , partly because they are the best , and partly for bragging rights down the pub , same did used to happen at scholarship level , with ' some ' clubs running more kids than RFL rules allowed 

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Which is exactly what I agreed with in the previous threads about academy licences. I’ve long argued that an academy should be mandatory for all SL clubs and that clubs should be measured on how well they develop those youngsters and bring them through to their 1st team and let them then establish themselves as 1st team players.

Too many clubs just see their youngsters as squad fillers, there to cover for injuries and they automatically buy in new. It’s no coincidence that the 3 most successful clubs are the ones with the 3 best academies and the ones who continually promote from within as their first priority and only buy in when they don’t have an academy player for that position at that time.

So why do the ' big ' 3 produce more players ? , I asked you this yesterday , but you declined answering , as usual 

[Tommygilf]

44 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Nope! 

Didn't say that - I Said the local team, that the player comes from is compensated by the outsider team. 

Did not say the local pro club had to agree to it. 

If an Amateur player is signed from his own area - NO FEE.

Basically, Fish in your own pool.

Do we define by postcodes, google maps, wikipedia?

[bobbruce]

42 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Nope! 

Didn't say that - I Said the local team, that the player comes from is compensated by the outsider team. 

Did not say the local pro club had to agree to it. 

If an Amateur player is signed from his own area - NO FEE.

Basically, Fish in your own pool.

Fair enough I get you know. I still don’t see what the local pro club is doing to gain this advantage as most amateur clubs are completely independent. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Fair enough I get you know. I still don’t see what the local pro club is doing to gain this advantage as most amateur clubs are completely independent. 

Quids in if you're Leeds! Got a whole city to go at. Bad luck for Parkside, Hunslet Warriors and even the likes of Stanley and Birstall Victoria though, as they're likely to lose players to clubs just over the "border".

[Davo5]

3 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

It's an unfair system -right thru the leagues.

The Top teams get almost 2M central Funding and they also are allowed Academies.

The Lower teams dont get much central Funding and they also are NOT allowed Academies.

Back in the days of Eddie and Stevo - I remember Stevo doing a piece on the country as a whole including the Amateur clubs.  I think it was an aussie plan

He said that hypothetical borders should be drawn around all the pro clubs. And the local amateur clubs therein each border should classed similar to that particular pro teams a,b,c, or d team etc.

From there: -

If/When a player decides at any point, he wants to turn pro/semi pro, then

1] He should sign for his local club.

2} If not , then a team ie a SL team from another area should pay a fee. [Like a transfer]

3} For arguments sake in case of amateur players moving around - its where you played your first Rugby.

A good example would be -

Leeds [A Top team, with huge CF and an academy], close to Hunslet [Not a Top team, with little CF and no academy] if a player from Hunslet Parkside amateur team [future star] decides to turn pro he would not be blamed for going to Leeds or even another Top Club Wigan Saints etc.

But his own local team have lost out - If a Fee is charged for signing elsewhere, then the Hunslet team will at least be compensated. This would allow the teams to build via the compensation in loss of the players

I Just used Leeds as an example as it is a SL next to an L1 team - my area has no SL presence.

If the RFL are not going to allow all teams to have A teams or academies they should not allow all the teams with the huge CF to hoover up all the future prospects from all the other areas.

Remember as Stevo said using the border system, all teams would treat equal which is something rare in the RFL and it is not just about SL teams - it could be teams in same leagues.

You could have team X in league one with no amateur teams and team Y with a good strong amateur system but team X offers a lad more money, so he moves to X - this is right for the player but wrong in principle. 

We don't have a transfer system now - but it could be set up just for the initial signing pro

 

But 3 non Superleague clubs do have academies.