Who will have an A licence and why?

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

The ' rigged deck ' could also apply to the 125 years advantage that clubs have had over a Crusaders and a Toronto,compounded by a salary cap that may prevent wealthy investors becoming involved,and of course the years and years of broadcast money going to the same clubs.

If they remove promotion and relegation it will take more than 30 years to overcome. 

It would be good if IMG could state some short term,mid - term,and long term objectives.

Some levelling up would be good,just in case the government U turn and promises to clubs made by local councils fail to materialise.

 

I've long advocated an expansion strategy that acknowledges the challenges faced by newer teams. What exactly the concessions should be are debatable and I think we all have different tolerances. 

As we saw, Keighley want to concessions for expansion clubs. 

[bobbruce]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It does. The thing that is often missed out though is the part where the controlling body isn't the same either. So, in a direct copy, it wouldn't just be out of Leeds Rhinos' control (until the player is drafted aged 19 or whenever) but also outside the RFL's too.

Given the size of the sport, and also how youth development happens in this country across all sports, I think we're a lot better improving the system we have than in importing a whole new model.

There’s also the issue of money if a player is drafted (is that the term) in America he may be asked to move to the other side of the country. He will though be earning millions of $ or at least hundreds of thousands. We’d be asking players to move from Wigan to Hull or vice Versa for £25k. Maybe even less as I seem to remember that as a minimum wage being scrapped. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

There’s also the issue of money if a player is drafted (is that the term) in America he may be asked to move to the other side of the country. He will though be earning millions of $ or at least hundreds of thousands. We’d be asking players to move from Wigan to Hull or vice Versa for £25k. Maybe even less as I seem to remember that as a minimum wage being scrapped. 

Yes, I don't think we should be asking anyone to move to Hull for that kind of money. Even if it does mean moving out of Wigan. 

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, yipyee said:

Yeah, 

So onceiys gets competitive some clubs turn away players, many of whom parents played at the club and would be future first team players, instead these clubs chase 'better players' the teams then loose players or once lads get scholarships stop playing and the teams fold.

I saw a post about blackbrook that 4 junior teams are in finals, if that's the case why doesn't this transfer to their poor first team and why have their other age groups struggled to fulfill fixtures?

It is of course different from age group to age group as its a parent who has little accountability in charge.

Another club I am aware of cut players and effectively kicked kids out of a club, this was based on how good 11 year olds are at playing the game. Absolute madness!!

 

Is it just me because I don't understand any of this post

[iffleyox]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

Who will have an A licence and why?

Leeds. Wigan StHelens, Warrington beacuase they're Leeds, wigan StHelens and Warrington.

so what you're saying is, when it comes to getting an A Licence, next year is Warrington's year? 

What could possibly go wrong??

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I absolutely agree with the point about the system entrenching certain advantages, but aren't they the symptom rather than the cause? 

Ultimately, doesn't this all come down to two major issues; the first being that the salary cap is too low, and the second being that there simply aren't enough young players being developed in the community game to sustain the professional game in its current guise? 

These two issues create a situation where, for example, stronger clubs get more value from the salary cap - certain players see the chance of playing in finals as an opportunity cost worth paying. That dynamic also works (admittedly in a different way) in the favour of heartland clubs vs expansion clubs, especially those in high cost-of-living areas (such as London) or those which would require players to uproot families (such as Newcastle, Cornwall, Wales and to some degree, even Hull). And I would also argue that this is where things like playing and training facilities, post-career opportunities and the quality of the business leadership comes into it. Nobody wants to work in a dump, people want to feel supported, and there's no way in hell I could (willingly) work for a boss like Michael Carter. All of that stuff counts when it comes to recruiting talent. 

The sport has seemingly acknowledged these challenges, whilst at the same time trying every which way to fix the problems that this causes without actually raising the cap. Cap exemptions for developed players were introduced as a response to a problem that the low salary ceiling made it harder to retain top talent and marquee rules were introduced to try and attract talent from the Australia who could otherwise earn more money as a benchwarmer in the NRL, but they by design can only benefit those clubs that develop their own players and/or can afford to pay marquee money. 

Raising the cap isn't without its own consequences, but the current format isn't achieving on any of the aims it was supposedly setting out to do - to protect clubs from themselves financially, to spread around the talent and to spread around the success. 

Yes true, the RFL acknowledge there are not enough of the talent to go round the clubs each year and tried to reduce academies, but this was seen as stopping talent rather than creating something elite

[GUBRATS]

I have no problem with the number of academies being ' capped ' ultimately we only need to produce 20 odd new SL players per year , and decimating the community game isn't what we want either 

But the advantages on the Salary Cap should be enough of an advantage , the lack of an academy should not affect anybody's ' grading ' for a SL spot 

There is no other system we could now introduce 

[David Dockhouse Host]

56 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If having an academy is part of the condition, then everyone who wants to fund an academy has to be allowed one. 

I know I keep banging on but we have two clubs in south yorkshire and a population of a million plus, 40 mins from the heartlands. RFL needs to be getting serious about tapping into a giant lake that´s next to a pond where everyone in rl is casting their net. 

Are there community clubs in this area?

If so that lake is still being fished, the clubs recruiting will soon be there if there are good players.

If not there's little point having an academy, they would only recruit from the same community clubs

[David Dockhouse Host]

19 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

In areas outside heartlands (midlands South Yorkshire) it would be getting lads from college and then branching into schools. 

Its a different area so you would have to build differently. In new areas I think to have to establish a meaningful pathway to something which would incentivise kids to take it up.

I love the idea, but it's a big investment and will take a lot of time with little chance of rewards for sometime.

It would probably need community clubs to take it up unless the schools would have a meaningful system, which I doubt

[David Dockhouse Host]

11 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Buts thats where I am saying, the RFL need to work with Eagles and Doncaster to put a pathway in place for South Yorkshire. 

I dont think there are lots of community clubs and they can hardly approach colleges in South Yorkshire to set up with the coaches and refs for a South Yorkshire college league. 

I think its a better investment than handing it out to championship clubs best on position. 

I think a 5 year plan. Year one, get 4 colleges in South Yorkshire to establish a separate South Yorkshire college (we dont want college teams getting battered).

Year 2 best players from South Yorkshire colleges combine for academy from Feb to Sep, then college starts again. 

Thats your cycle.

Certainly worth investigating for sure

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

If having an academy is part of the condition, then everyone who wants to fund an academy has to be allowed one. 

I know I keep banging on but we have two clubs in south yorkshire and a population of a million plus, 40 mins from the heartlands. RFL needs to be getting serious about tapping into a giant lake that´s next to a pond where everyone in rl is casting their net. 

But if you make it part of the grading , then you potentially have academies being run for the wrong reasons , to tick a box , not necessarily to produce top quality players 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Why I said if. But criteria cant be fair if clubs are banned but that very denied opportunity is held against them. Thats just a cowards franchising. 

Criteria is rarely ' fair ' , and even less seen as fair 

[David Dockhouse Host]

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If the argument is a lack of players where else to grab them than a region next to heartlands so going into part time amatuer or uni game and option plus no union side to compete with.

I imagine the easiest way is to increase participation in the heartlands but say 15% may be easier than a new area completely.

More Tag rugby games to encourage those not physically developed yet I think would help if we consider a pyramid approach were the more players you start with the more you get out the other end.

[Saint Toppy]

On 01/10/2022 at 22:42, David Dockhouse Host said:

I understand why you may think that but the fact is quite different, it's mainly because they get first draft of the best kids.

There's no such thing as a Draft - every junior has a choice of who they sign for if made multiple offers. The fact that many of the top players choose the top 3 clubs is largely down to what those clubs can offer that many of the other clubs don't, can't or wont.

There are multiple reasons, money, coaching, facilities, opportunity etc. so the real question should be why don't all clubs offer the same to try and entice the best youngsters ?

So if academy / youth development is made part of the A Licence criteria this will force clubs to improve in this area.  

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

 

There are multiple reasons, money, coaching, facilities, opportunity etc. so the real question should be why don't all clubs offer the same to try and entice the best youngsters ?

This is the bit that is nonsense. It's how Saints, Wigan and Leeds justify rewarding themselves, patting themselves on the back as more rules are introduced that activeky prevent this happening. 

If only the others tried harder! 

[Saint Toppy]

17 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It's not the fault of the big 3 this is happening. The cycle is in place now and I don't know how anyone can break it. Clubs have tried, they have invested but despite the odd good year, the odd first teamer they largely fall short of the 3.

The big 3 can quite easily be the big 4, 5 or 6 in a relatively short space of time. Using Warrington as an example, they have the money, they have the facilities, they have good local engagement and their academy teams generally do OK on the field. The only thing thats stops Warrington is Opportunity. For years they've just gone out and tried to buy success, importing new players at every opportunity. They must put youngsters off from signing for the club in the first place if they can see they would have little opportunity to try and establish themselves in the first team if they choose to sign for Wire.

[phiggins]

Missed a lot of the conversation around the IMG proposals, so no doubt this has been covered already. But, who decides who out of the B grades gets to be in Super League? And how will they make sure that they judge current Championship Bs fairly against current Super League Bs, given the latter has had the benefit of significant central funding to get their B status, while the others haven't?

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The big 3 can quite easily be the big 4, 5 or 6 in a relatively short space of time. Using Warrington as an example, they have the money, they have the facilities, they have good local engagement and their academy teams generally do OK on the field. The only thing thats stops Warrington is Opportunity. For years they've just gone out and tried to buy success, importing new players at every opportunity. They must put youngsters off from signing for the club in the first place if they can see they would have little opportunity to try and establish themselves in the first team if they choose to sign for Wire.

I think this is a bit of a false narrative. 

Have Wire actively stopped quality players playing for the first team? Or is it that the players we have are not as good as Wigan, Saints and Leeds, because we get 4th choice? Because I don't see a list of players who we have gone on elsewhere and done well. 

So if you don't have the quality, they don't break through into the first team, and you buy in. But then apparently good kids don't join you, because they think they won't get in. But if you do put them in your team is weaker and you become less attractive.

Because as things stand - literally the only difference Wire can make if we follow the logic through, is to start playing young kids no matter their standard. I'm not sure that is a great plan.

 

[Dave T]

49 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Missed a lot of the conversation around the IMG proposals, so no doubt this has been covered already. But, who decides who out of the B grades gets to be in Super League? And how will they make sure that they judge current Championship Bs fairly against current Super League Bs, given the latter has had the benefit of significant central funding to get their B status, while the others haven't?

I think that is the biggest 'gap' in the proposals, and is easily the most controversial bit. I think it was naive of them to release this without more thought on that.

Apparently the best rated B sides make up the rest of the SL places. But then the B sides are interchangeable, and nobody knows whether that means there will be an annual reshuffle, or what.

[Barley Mow]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Because as things stand - literally the only difference Wire can make if we follow the logic through, is to start playing young kids no matter their standard. I'm not sure that is a great plan.

 

I know this season wasn't good Dave, but you don't need to get excuses in for next year quite yet! 

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is the biggest 'gap' in the proposals, and is easily the most controversial bit. I think it was naive of them to release this without more thought on that.

Apparently the best rated B sides make up the rest of the SL places. But then the B sides are interchangeable, and nobody knows whether that means there will be an annual reshuffle, or what.

They've talked about ranking the teams within each category.

So, it doesn't sound particularly random or overlooked.

It may also be, of course, that not all B teams want to be in the top tier, either.

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is the biggest 'gap' in the proposals, and is easily the most controversial bit. I think it was naive of them to release this without more thought on that.

Apparently the best rated B sides make up the rest of the SL places. But then the B sides are interchangeable, and nobody knows whether that means there will be an annual reshuffle, or what.

There's definitely been discussions of rankings within tiers, and specific mention of "strong Bs" as a sort of subcategory. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They've talked about ranking the teams within each category.

So, it doesn't sound particularly random or overlooked.

It may also be, of course, that not all B teams want to be in the top tier, either.

 

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There's definitely been discussions of rankings within tiers, and specific mention of "strong Bs" as a sort of subcategory. 

Yes, they've highlighted that the strongest rated B teams will make up the remaining SL clubs. They have also said that they will be assessed annually. That suggests there can be movement between divisions annually. That would appear to maintain the lack of certainty that is a challenge with P&R. 

The one problem this fixes is it stops a smaller club replacing a weak club, which could have happened this year had Wire lost another couple and Batley had one more win. 

I don't think it addresses the biggest issue. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

 

Yes, they've highlighted that the strongest rated B teams will make up the remaining SL clubs. They have also said that they will be assessed annually. That suggests there can be movement between divisions annually. That would appear to maintain the lack of certainty that is a challenge with P&R. 

The one problem this fixes is it stops a smaller club replacing a weak club, which could have happened this year had Wire lost another couple and Batley had one more win. 

I don't think it addresses the biggest issue. 

The way to avoid it will be to improve to A standard.

The whole point is to drive up standards.

This is a non issue of vanishingly tiny importance in the context of the whole game.

I'm very not on board with twisting the whole conversation to the same four or five clubs every time.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The way to avoid it will be to improve to A standard.

The whole point is to drive up standards.

This is a non issue of vanishingly tiny importance in the context of the whole game.

I'm very not on board with twisting the whole conversation to the same four or five clubs every time.

It isn't a non-issue though, as long as you have B clubs in SL. 

It isn't vanishing, it's not like we are getting more and more big clubs. 

Hopefully this will address that, but this proposal effectively leaves annual P&R on the table for the foreseeable future.