Jump to content

Who will have an A licence and why?


Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

But 3 non Superleague clubs do have academies.

How many players do they produce now ?

Not a difficult question Dav 

Those non SL clubs , how many players do they produce ? 

Edited by GUBRATS
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Do we define by postcodes, google maps, wikipedia?

Not that difficult!  - only if you want it to be? - a map with pins where teams are and put a rough border separating each and every one will also know which teams for example in the Wakefield, Cas , Fev area, which amateur team is in which area.

I dont know all the amateur teams but i guess Fev lions isn't a Cas team?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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. 

Yep, I can concur with your view.   

My son played RU and his team regular and almost all the time beat those clubs you mentioned as they moved up the age groups - even at pre-uni age.   Now I not absolutely sure the likes of Leicester always played their first choice but as far as I could tell they did.

He continued playing at Uni up at Newcastle and was always being tapped up by other RU teams.  He wasn't interested as he had other goals, not sport and as it turns out probably makes more money now than most of those that played at those clubs and went on to be fully professional.

He wasn't in a RL area and never talked to anyone except RU although he always said he preferred playing RU but liked watching RL.  Maybe given a chance he may have enjoyed RL more, although his perception was that RU offered more in way of rugby tours, friendships/socialising, etc etc..., 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Not that difficult!  - only if you want it to be? - a map with pins where teams are and put a rough border separating each and every one will also know which teams for example in the Wakefield, Cas , Fev area, which amateur team is in which area.

I dont know all the amateur teams but i guess Fev lions isn't a Cas team?

I'll humour you, it is that difficult. You are talking about measures that restrict/affect players employment opportunities, these aren't to be done on a whim. 

If you fancy yourself as a player, and your closest club is demarcated as being in territory belonging to Fev, Hunslet, Batley, Dewsbury, Bradford, even Wakefield or Cas, its highly likely that a significant number of such young players will look to clubs just over the border to be in the Leeds Rhinos area. And considering Leeds already has probably more clubs than any other Professional team within its "borders" (even discounting South of the river), it wouldn't be hard to accommodate the influx which would also consolidate the strength of the clubs there. 

If people are already travelling across the County to play for "the right clubs" now, why would they not in future? The days of playing for your local amateur team just because they are your local team are as distant as supporting your local pro club for the same reason. People are far more able to move.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 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. 

In some areas Semi Pro/Pro teams do work well with their Local teams and if they dont -they should.

Because as many on here say about the CF [Sky} money only the elite 12 earn it, so we dont deserve it.

So if we take that as fact - then as a fellow old Fart [Adelaide Tiger] who answered me on another IMG forum states 

"I’m an old fart and I remember those halcyon days pre SL when there was no vast gap between the two leagues as most players played for their local team and were paid win/lose money and had to work 40 hours a week as well.  Also because players wages were relatively similar across clubs it really made little sense for players to move even if their club was relegated so clubs weren’t stripped of their best players.

However, SKY money disrupted this equilibrium, especially when some players went from £300 a win to £30,000 a year."

This is a fact! - and before the Sky money [which we dont get] those players would have stayed local - therefore we have lost players that would have signed for us if they had pro ambitions.

So that is why I believe local teams should be compensated

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

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

I didn’t decline I just couldn’t be bothered to answer at the time given I’m currently sat on a beach in the Caribbean and not in dreary England 😁

But in response the big 3 produce more because over the last few decades they’ve invested more in their youth and created a pathway for those kids to get their 1st team chance. When a 1st teamer leaves their first thought is which of our youngsters is ready to step up and take their place, not who can we go out and buy to replace them

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I didn’t decline I just couldn’t be bothered to answer at the time given I’m currently sat on a beach in the Caribbean and not in dreary England 😁

But in response the big 3 produce more because over the last few decades they’ve invested more in their youth and created a pathway for those kids to get their 1st team chance. When a 1st teamer leaves their first thought is which of our youngsters is ready to step up and take their place, not who can we go out and buy to replace them

Blx 

They produce more because they get more of the best to start with , plenty of that done through creating amateur ' super clubs ' , plenty of having bigger scholarships than they were supposed to have , plenty of ' bribing ' junior coaches to encourage the better kids to move clubs , not forgetting actual monetary incentives , and one of the big ones of Dads having bragging rights for where their lad is on scholarship or academy 

Leigh got Chris Hill quite simply because he refused to move to St Pat's as Wigan asked him to do , so the lesser clubs get the odd one like Chris or the occasional late developer , but the big clubs hoover up all the best either at scholarship or academy , Tommy Makinson and Joe Burgess were at Leigh scholarship , but jumped ship at academy , so give Saints 4th pick round Lancashire and we'd see a lot less coming through no matter how much ' better ' the coaching or the money pumped in 

So you suggest that in our brave new IMG world teams that don't produce their own should lose A grading , who decided what the cut off is ? , You ? , How about we remove the academy from the grading , as clubs like Saints , Wigan and Leeds are already gaining advantage on the salary cap , just how much of an advantage do you want ? 

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

44 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Blx 

They produce more because they get more of the best to start with , plenty of that done through creating amateur ' super clubs ' , plenty of having bigger scholarships than they were supposed to have , plenty of ' bribing ' junior coaches to encourage the better kids to move clubs , not forgetting actual monetary incentives , and one of the big ones of Dads having bragging rights for where their lad is on scholarship or academy 

Leigh got Chris Hill quite simply because he refused to move to St Pat's as Wigan asked him to do , so the lesser clubs get the odd one like Chris or the occasional late developer , but the big clubs hoover up all the best either at scholarship or academy , Tommy Makinson and Joe Burgess were at Leigh scholarship , but jumped ship at academy , so give Saints 4th pick round Lancashire and we'd see a lot less coming through no matter how much ' better ' the coaching or the money pumped in 

So you suggest that in our brave new IMG world teams that don't produce their own should lose A grading , who decided what the cut off is ? , You ? , How about we remove the academy from the grading , as clubs like Saints , Wigan and Leeds are already gaining advantage on the salary cap , just how much of an advantage do you want ? 

Jeeze what a hissy fit. It’s not about advantage it’s about some clubs spending time, money and effort on their academies and thus them reaping the rewards. While others just pay lip service and continually whine that they can’t compete.

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Jeeze what a hissy fit. It’s not about advantage it’s about some clubs spending time, money and effort on their academies and thus them reaping the rewards. While others just pay lip service and continually whine that they can’t compete.

As I said 

Blx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any of the other sports where IMG have an involvement that have Academies?

Are IMG in the least bit interested?

If so,perhaps they can ensure that the best possible coaching is afforded to them.

I did check the Basketball EuroLeague they are involved with.

A licences last 10 years.The arenas must have 10k seats.The clubs are certainly more than 20 miles apart.

On another note,the Hollywood wealthy couple 8nvolved with Wrexham soccer club,quite enjoy the novelty of promotion and aim to take their non-league soccer club to the Premier League. 

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Are there any of the other sports where IMG have an involvement that have Academies?

Are IMG in the least bit interested?

If so,perhaps they can ensure that the best possible coaching is afforded to them.

I did check the Basketball EuroLeague they are involved with.

A licences last 10 years.The arenas must have 10k seats.The clubs are certainly more than 20 miles apart.

On another note,the Hollywood wealthy couple 8nvolved with Wrexham soccer club,quite enjoy the novelty of promotion and aim to take their non-league soccer club to the Premier League. 

I'd suggest they aren't ' interested ' in academies , but do understand the need to have them to produce UK players for the sport and the potential benefit that is for the England/GB team going forward into the lucrative  international market 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Jeeze what a hissy fit. It’s not about advantage it’s about some clubs spending time, money and effort on their academies and thus them reaping the rewards. While others just pay lip service and continually whine that they can’t compete.

I think this is a bit naïve. Go watch any under 14s game, the best kids will be signed to Saints/Wigan/Leeds scholarships for the following year, with Wire shortly behind. They get first pick, everyone else gets to fight over the ones they missed or don't want.

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

7 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.

It's no coincidence that these same clubs get first draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, V02 said:

I think this is a bit naïve. Go watch any under 14s game, the best kids will be signed to Saints/Wigan/Leeds scholarships for the following year, with Wire shortly behind. They get first pick, everyone else gets to fight over the ones they missed or don't want.

This 👆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Blx 

They produce more because they get more of the best to start with , plenty of that done through creating amateur ' super clubs ' , plenty of having bigger scholarships than they were supposed to have , plenty of ' bribing ' junior coaches to encourage the better kids to move clubs , not forgetting actual monetary incentives , and one of the big ones of Dads having bragging rights for where their lad is on scholarship or academy 

Leigh got Chris Hill quite simply because he refused to move to St Pat's as Wigan asked him to do , so the lesser clubs get the odd one like Chris or the occasional late developer , but the big clubs hoover up all the best either at scholarship or academy , Tommy Makinson and Joe Burgess were at Leigh scholarship , but jumped ship at academy , so give Saints 4th pick round Lancashire and we'd see a lot less coming through no matter how much ' better ' the coaching or the money pumped in 

So you suggest that in our brave new IMG world teams that don't produce their own should lose A grading , who decided what the cut off is ? , You ? , How about we remove the academy from the grading , as clubs like Saints , Wigan and Leeds are already gaining advantage on the salary cap , just how much of an advantage do you want ? 

This is difficult to hear but sadly true.

Hopefully people realise it's not as simple as getting an academy and good coaches.

  • Confused 1
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...