Who will have an A licence and why?

[yipyee]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That's simply not true.

While we've chosen to play CNAS over the last couple of years, we have also played NZ in Denver, Samoa in Sydney, France and Exiles over the years (we even went to Aus to get battered by the Aussies years back too!). . But its always welcome if we confirm that this is a fixture that will be regular without the need for debate. 

We have had end of season internationals ever since we 'aligned the global calendars' around 26 years ago! The only time the RFL hasn't had any games was during Covid in 2020, when the planned Ashes was cancelled, and 2021 we played only 1 test as the RLWC was postponed. 

I'm really not sure in what world you are in to suggest we dobt do internationals each Autumn. 

They are an afterthought thrown together after the season has ended with little planning or time to commercially benefit.

If you look at union you know the calender set in stone.

6 nations and autum internationals every year, touring in the summer and a world cup that doesn't move when one nation cries off.

You basically know as soon as the 6 nations is over its the revers fixtures the following year. The RFU don't even need to market it, people just know and rebook year after year.

RL cannot even organise games against proper nations and no one can tell you when the next games are. The world cup has been a shambles so far, postponed for a year for nothing, venues changed, players aged out. Its a joke, I had tickets for several games and got my money back for all of them.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

They are an afterthought thrown together after the season has ended with little planning or time to commercially benefit.

If you look at union you know the calender set in stone.

6 nations and autum internationals every year, touring in the summer and a world cup that doesn't move when one nation cries off.

You basically know as soon as the 6 nations is over its the revers fixtures the following year. The RFU don't even need to market it, people just know and rebook year after year.

RL cannot even organise games against proper nations and no one can tell you when the next games are. The world cup has been a shambles so far, postponed for a year for nothing, venues changed, players aged out. Its a joke, I had tickets for several games and got my money back for all of them.

Right. So we do play international games every year in Oct/Nov? 

[yipyee]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Right. So we do play international games every year in Oct/Nov? 

At home? No

[idrewthehaggis]

9 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Simply put the current system favours the top 3, this isn't blaming them, many get defensive, it is how it works though.

Yes the system is rigged. 

It works for the same three who dominate the Game. And it enhances that dominance.

Only a minority of youngsters can play rugby. Same with cycling, swimming. Its a niche sport.

The paucity of the possible, is reduced even more when you calculate who can develop into SL quality players.

This minute gaggle is monopolised by the Three. And the circle rolls on. 

Irrespective of whether KR, Salford or Huddersfield developed the very best facilities, bought in the finest coaches, the numbers of kids are not there.

I believe the system needs to be collective, rational and pioneering. Currently it is a stitch up to enhance a minority of clubs. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Yes the system is rigged. 

It works for the same three who dominate the Game. And it enhances that dominance.

Only a minority of youngsters can play rugby. Same with cycling, swimming. Its a niche sport.

The paucity of the possible, is reduced even more when you calculate who can develop into SL quality players.

This minute gaggle is monopolised by the Three. And the circle rolls on. 

Irrespective of whether KR, Salford or Huddersfield developed the very best facilities, bought in the finest coaches, the numbers of kids are not there.

I believe the system needs to be collective, rational and pioneering. Currently it is a stitch up to enhance a minority of clubs. 

My concern with it is less about it being rigged to those three, more that I think the obsession with home-grown players has gone too far, and I think it is driven more by keeping costs down than getting the best 25 to 30 players together to entertain fans and deliver a great product. 

I always made this point when Toronto were in, but personally I couldn't care less where the players are from that represent my team. Sure, we should incentivise and have some rules that drive development for the benefit of England, but I find a lot of the players knocking around in SL competent rather than exciting and talented. And that includes at the top teams. 

If anyone ever asks me who my favourite Wire players are that I have seen, I say John Woods, Des Drummond, Phil Blake, Kevin Ellis, Allan Bateman, Jonathan Davies, Lee Briers, Adrian Morley, Ben Westwood, Mike Gregory, Greg Mackey and so on. 

I've been a supporter of prudence in the game and keeping us sustainable, and it is probably proving helpful at the moment, but I think we have gone too far and haven't loosened the purse strings to allow us to maintain that excitement level that's needed. 

I think too many of our squads are made up of good lads who are there because they offer good value. 

[Damien]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

My concern with it is less about it being rigged to those three, more that I think the obsession with home-grown players has gone too far, and I think it is driven more by keeping costs down than getting the best 25 to 30 players together to entertain fans and deliver a great product. 

I always made this point when Toronto were in, but personally I couldn't care less where the players are from that represent my team. Sure, we should incentivise and have some rules that drive development for the benefit of England, but I find a lot of the players knocking around in SL competent rather than exciting and talented. And that includes at the top teams. 

If anyone ever asks me who my favourite Wire players are that I have seen, I say John Woods, Des Drummond, Phil Blake, Kevin Ellis, Allan Bateman, Jonathan Davies, Lee Briers, Adrian Morley, Ben Westwood, Mike Gregory, Greg Mackey and so on. 

I've been a supporter of prudence in the game and keeping us sustainable, and it is probably proving helpful at the moment, but I think we have gone too far and haven't loosened the purse strings to allow us to maintain that excitement level that's needed. 

I think too many of our squads are made up of good lads who are there because they offer good value. 

Absobloodylutely.

One of the bug bears of mine is forcing everyone into a one size fits all approach that heavily favours the top teams that cements their place at the top. Now youth development is fine, I'm a big advocate of that and have long said that academies should be a core requirement of being in Super League. However, it should not be the only way and it was never the only way up until the last couple of decades.

With all the salary cap dispensations and inherent advantages the top teams have it is now nigh on impossible for a lower club to regularly beat these top clubs under the systems in place now. This coupled with a low salary cap, that has never kept place with inflation, means they can never be outspent by some upstart stacks all the cards in their favour. Unfortunately, the lower down teams are quite happy with this as it means they dont have to do these things either and they themselves are somewhat protected by some upstart too. The IMG proposals could well remove some of this protection. I do think though if a Derek Beaumont wants to upset the apple cart and spend £3 million then let him as far as I'm concerned. The league needs more stars, more quality and frankly a lot more excitement.

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

Right. So we do play international games every year in Oct/Nov? 

You say that Dave, but England have played 1 test match against international opposition since the conclusion of the 2018 NZ tour here. Even if you add the CNAS that's only 2 games extra. I'm loathe to add GB games to the mix too but even being kind and adding that and the CNAS games brings the grand total to 7 games in nearly 4 years.

Whilst Covid and the World cup postponements were clear issues in that period, it is still a dire record. 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

Absobloodylutely.

One of the bug bears of mine is forcing everyone into a one size fits all approach that heavily favours the top teams that cements their place at the top. Now youth development is fine, I'm a big advocate of that and have long said that academies should be a core requirement of being in Super League. However, it should not be the only way and it was never the only way up until the last couple of decades.

With all the salary cap dispensations and inherent advantages the top teams have it is now nigh on impossible for a lower club to regularly beat these top clubs under the systems in place now. This coupled with a low salary cap, that has never kept place with inflation, means they can never be outspent by some upstart stacks all the cards in their favour. Unfortunately, the lower down teams are quite happy with this as it means they dont have to do these things either and they themselves are somewhat protected by some upstart too. The IMG proposals could well remove some of this protection. I do think though if a Derek Beaumont wants to upset the apple cart and spend £3 million then let him as far as I'm concerned. The league needs more stars, more quality and frankly a lot more excitement.

I'm glad it's not just me Damien. Because youth development is absolutely great, and we need it, but as you say, we can't be so prescriptive so that it becomes the only way of winning. Because, quite frankly, it's not very sexy. 

I'm still a big fan of sustainability, especially when we look at what is happening with union at the moment, but I can't help but feel there may be better ways of structuring our rules around squads and spend. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm glad it's not just me Damien. Because youth development is absolutely great, and we need it, but as you say, we can't be so prescriptive so that it becomes the only way of winning. Because, quite frankly, it's not very sexy. 

I'm still a big fan of sustainability, especially when we look at what is happening with union at the moment, but I can't help but feel there may be better ways of structuring our rules around squads and spend. 

The growth of the endless march for more Sustainability has arguably been the greatest scourge on the mentality of the game over the past 10/15 years.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

You say that Dave, but England have played 1 test match against international opposition since the conclusion of the 2018 NZ tour here. Even if you add the CNAS that's only 2 games extra. I'm loathe to add GB games to the mix too but even being kind and adding that and the CNAS games brings the grand total to 7 games in nearly 4 years.

Whilst Covid and the World cup postponements were clear issues in that period, it is still a dire record. 

We have played internationals at the end of the season literally every season since SL was created and we aligned our calendar, with the exception of two years where the organised games were cancelled due to a worldwide pandemic. 

And now IMG are proposing we align our season so we can play internationals at the end of the year. That is a nonsense proposal, and no amount of caveats or half-truths will change the fact that we have an international window in October. I mean, we are playing 61 internationals, plus half a dozen warmup staring in two days! 

If their proposal was that we would deliver a consistent 4 to 6 tests including at least 2 at home etc. that would be great - but to put an October international window front and centre, when we have one, is just weird. 

[Saint Toppy]

14 hours ago, Dave T said:

The principle of what you say has merits.

But I'll go back to the fact that if Saints, Leeds and Wigan get first dibs on the best talent, if Wire start to just play ours, we will be weaker, not stronger. 

 

That's my whole point, with your own youngsters your never going to get the ready made article and of course your going to be weaker at the start. The difference is clubs like Saints, Wigan & Leeds accept that and give those youngsters the chance to settle in and develop and bring themselves up to the highest level. Wire don't, they just say they're not the ready made article and go out and but some 30yr old Aussie.

Saints could have gone out and bought a replacement for Fages, but they didn't they put faith in Lewis Dodd knowing he was far from the finished article, similarly they could have bought a replacement for Coote, but didn't they elected to give Welsby the No 1 shirt.

They don't always have youngsters ready to step up into all positions and of course they have to bring in new players from outside the club, but that's always their 2nd option. If they have a youngster with promise then he'll get his chance first. As i've said previously clubs like Saints, Wigan & Leeds have a different philosophy than most others when it comes to developing their own youngsters, they accept some short term pain for the long term gain. The fact that these 3 teams have dominated SL largely with teams of home grown players proves there's merit in their thinking.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

The growth of the endless march for more Sustainability has arguably been the greatest scourge on the mentality of the game over the past 10/15 years.

I think it has served a purpose, but we just haven't known when to move on and loosen the purse strings. 

We should be sustainable, but that can't be at the expense of growth. 

I've been happy that we have as a sport focused on things like facilities and youth etc. but broadly speaking we are in a good place on these things. It's where licensing works - clubs can be judged on the other things they do rather than us having to be so prescriptive with salary caps to force them to do it. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We have played internationals at the end of the season literally every season since SL was created and we aligned our calendar, with the exception of two years where the organised games were cancelled due to a worldwide pandemic. 

And now IMG are proposing we align our season so we can play internationals at the end of the year. That is a nonsense proposal, and no amount of caveats or half-truths will change the fact that we have an international window in October. I mean, we are playing 61 internationals, plus half a dozen warmup staring in two days! 

If their proposal was that we would deliver a consistent 4 to 6 tests including at least 2 at home etc. that would be great - but to put an October international window front and centre, when we have one, is just weird. 

Perhaps the suggestion is that England will definitely be playing regardless of Australia and New Zealand coming over or vice versa. It also might mean things being built into contracts etc and the doomed word in international RL, a "calendar".

Its very easy to assume that within RL circles everyone knows we play internationals at the end of the year. Outside of that, perhaps who IMG will be discussing commercial rights with, it all seems a bit flimsy in comparison to competitor sports.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Saint Toppy said:

That's my whole point, with your own youngsters your never going to get the ready made article and of course your going to be weaker at the start. The difference is clubs like Saints, Wigan & Leeds accept that and give those youngsters the chance to settle in and develop and bring themselves up to the highest level. Wire don't, they just say they're not the ready made article and go out and but some 30yr old Aussie.

Saints could have gone out and bought a replacement for Fages, but they didn't they put faith in Lewis Dodd knowing he was far from the finished article, similarly they could have bought a replacement for Coote, but didn't they elected to give Welsby the No 1 shirt.

They don't always have youngsters ready to step up into all positions and of course they have to bring in new players from outside the club, but that's always their 2nd option. If they have a youngster with promise then he'll get his chance first. As i've said previously clubs like Saints, Wigan & Leeds have a different philosophy than most others when it comes to developing their own youngsters, they accept some short term pain for the long term gain. The fact that these 3 teams have dominated SL largely with teams of home grown players proves there's merit in their thinking.

But Wire did that with Gareth O'brien, and Dec Patron. They played plenty, but weren't good enough. 

It's a false narrative. Wire don't have great young lads not being used. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Perhaps the suggestion is that England will definitely be playing regardless of Australia and New Zealand coming over or vice versa. It also might mean things being built into contracts etc and the doomed word in international RL, a "calendar".

Its very easy to assume that within RL circles everyone knows we play internationals at the end of the year. Outside of that, perhaps who IMG will be discussing commercial rights with, it all seems a bit flimsy in comparison to competitor sports.

Like I say, had the point been about delivering a strong window with x games and home presence and planned in advance blah blah blah, it would have been right. 

Saying we'll change the calendar so we can play internationals in October is a slight worry tbh, as they should know we already do that. 

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm glad it's not just me Damien. Because youth development is absolutely great, and we need it, but as you say, we can't be so prescriptive so that it becomes the only way of winning. Because, quite frankly, it's not very sexy. 

I'm still a big fan of sustainability, especially when we look at what is happening with union at the moment, but I can't help but feel there may be better ways of structuring our rules around squads and spend. 

I've said before but if the salary cap was truly about having a fair competition then a simple measure of no club can have more than 10 players (or whatever number is deemed appropriate) earning over 100k would stop clubs hoarding and would still allow owners to bring in stars if they desire. It really doesn't need to be as complicated as we see now and so heavily weighted towards maintaining the same status quo. 

Having dispensations for homegrown players then saying to clubs they can't have academies is inherently unfair. It should be in a club's interest to develop players anyway and makes good business and playing sense for them to do so.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've said before but if the salary cap was truly about having a fair competition then a simple measure of no club can have more than 10 players (or whatever number is deemed appropriate) earning over 100k would stop clubs hoarding and would still allow owners to bring in stars if they desire. It really doesn't need to be as complicated as we see now and so heavily weighted towards maintaining the same status quo. 

Having dispensations for homegrown players then saying to clubs they can't have academies is inherently unfair. It should be in a club's interest to develop players anyway and makes good business and playing sense for them to do so.

When I think back to one of my biggest RL memories, it was going to Wembley for the first ever time - Wembley 1990 where a legendary Wigan team took us apart. I'll never forget the occasion though. Its a time that many class as a good era (I'm not convinced, but that's a different debate). 

If we look back at that legendary Wigan team that day. 6 of the team were club developed, with 4 in the starting line up. Stars like Iro, Bell, Gregory, Hanley, Platt, Goodwat etc were brought in from other British teams and across the world. We shouldn't be afraid of signing players in. 

[Tommygilf]

Whilst browsing the socials this morning it crossed my mind how important infrastructure and facilities will be to this A Grading. England are at Robin Park, Wigan,  whilst the Kiwis are at Kirkstall in Leeds. 

The ability to host top level international teams and events is definitely a good sign for any club. Control of those facilities certainly helps strengthen the games position.

[Saint Toppy]

41 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've said before but if the salary cap was truly about having a fair competition then a simple measure of no club can have more than 10 players (or whatever number is deemed appropriate) earning over 100k would stop clubs hoarding and would still allow owners to bring in stars if they desire. It really doesn't need to be as complicated as we see now and so heavily weighted towards maintaining the same status quo. 

 

But then your dictating how they spend their salary cap. A much simpler change would be to set a minimum number of home grown players in your squad of 25 (say 15 or 18) in conjunction with reducing the overseas quota limit to say 4. That stops the clubs with the deepest pockets from just stripping the best talent from everyone and buying in all the best overseas talent they can afford.

[Roughyed Rats]

5 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

But then your dictating how they spend their salary cap. A much simpler change would be to set a minimum number of home grown players in your squad of 25 (say 15 or 18) in conjunction with reducing the overseas quota limit to say 4. That stops the clubs with the deepest pockets from just stripping the best talent from everyone and buying in all the best overseas talent they can afford.

Surely it should be the same as the requirement being made of the French teams?

[Damien]

Just now, Saint Toppy said:

But then your dictating how they spend their salary cap. A much simpler change would be to set a minimum number of home grown players in your squad of 25 (say 15 or 18) in conjunction with reducing the overseas quota limit to say 4. That stops the clubs with the deepest pockets from just stripping the best talent from everyone and buying in all the best overseas talent they can afford.

I'm not dictating as there would be no finite limit, it was also just an example on how talent can be distributed without restricting financially. I never said anything about getting rid of import quotas either, I'd keep them broadly as they are or broadly similar.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

But then your dictating how they spend their salary cap. A much simpler change would be to set a minimum number of home grown players in your squad of 25 (say 15 or 18) in conjunction with reducing the overseas quota limit to say 4. That stops the clubs with the deepest pockets from just stripping the best talent from everyone and buying in all the best overseas talent they can afford.

Why are you against clubs using financial advantages, but you are in favour of clubs using their pathway advantages. 

No towns will ever develop to become bigger Rugby League towns than Wigan, Saints or Leeds, who have in some cases 100 years of history behind them. 

[Saint Toppy]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not dictating as there would be no finite limit, it was also just an example on how talent can be distributed without restricting financially. I never said anything about getting rid of import quotas either, I'd keep them broadly as they are or broadly similar.

If your stating you can only have 10 players earing over £100K in your as quad then you are dictating how a club spends its salary cap

[Saint Toppy]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why are you against clubs using financial advantages, but you are in favour of clubs using their pathway advantages. 

No towns will ever develop to become bigger Rugby League towns than Wigan, Saints or Leeds, who have in some cases 100 years of history behind them. 

Talk about taking things out of context, I was responding to a specific proposal put forward by Damien and offering an alternative suggestion on the distribution of talent

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

If your stating you can only have 10 players earing over £100K in your as quad then you are dictating how a club spends its salary cap

It is far less restrictive than what we have now or what you proposed. And as you completely ignored, for the second time now, 10 was an example, 100k is an example. These can easily be changed. You are also taking this discussion completely out of context for some reason.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Damien